Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot
Date: 2009-05-29 21:42:53
Message-ID: 28267.1243633373@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Tom,
>> Is anyone interested enough to try it if I code it?

> If you're patient for results, sure.  I seem to be doing a customer 
> migration or upgrade every week now, so it wouldn't take me long to have 
> a test subject with a fairly complex database.

Here's a draft patch that does ordering using two lists, as I proposed.
Please test to see if it's any faster or slower than the original logic.

Note: since this changes struct TocEntry, be sure to recompile all files
in src/bin/pg_dump/ after patching.

			regards, tom lane


Attachment: alternate-parallel-restore-1.patch.gz
Description: application/octet-stream (3.3 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2009-05-29 21:43:20
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-05-29 21:26:25
Subject: Re: search_path vs extensions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group