On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:05:39AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Claudio, Stephen,
> >> It really seems like the areas where we could get the most "bang for the
> >> buck" in parallelism would be:
> >> 1. Parallel sort
> >> 2. Parallel aggregation (for commutative aggregates)
> >> 3. Parallel nested loop join (especially for expression joins, like GIS)
> >>parallel data load? :/
> >We have that in pg_restore, and I thinnk we are getting parallel dump in
> >9.3, right? Unfortunately, I don't see it in the last 9.3 commit-fest.
> >Is it still being worked on?
> I am about half way through reviewing it. Unfortunately paid work
> take precedence over unpaid work.
Do you think it will make it into 9.3?
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2013-01-16 17:20:50|
|Subject: Re: Materialized views WIP patch|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2013-01-16 17:16:27|
|Subject: Re: Parallel query execution|