From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: An idea for parallelizing COPY within one backend |
Date: | 2008-02-27 12:47:55 |
Message-ID: | 47C55BFB.6080405@phlo.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
>> ...
>> Neither the "dealer", nor the "workers" would need access to the either
>> the shared memory or the disk, thereby not messing with the "one backend
>> is one transaction is one session" dogma.
>> ...
>
> Unfortunately, this idea has far too narrow a view of what a datatype
> input function might do. Just for starters, consider "enum" input,
> which certainly requires catalog access. We have also explicitly
> acknowledged the idea that datatype I/O functions might try to store
> typmod-related data in some special catalog somewhere.
Hm... how many in-core datatypes are there which need catalog access in
their input or output functions? Maybe we could change the API for
i/o functions in a way that allows us to request all needed information
to be cached?
regards, Florian Pflug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-02-27 13:00:24 | Re: Required make version |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2008-02-27 12:46:14 | Re: OSSP can be used in the windows environment now! |