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

Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
Date: 2008-09-29 02:58:24
Message-ID: 48E04450.9080501@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>
>> this works better but there is something fishy still - using the same 
>> dump file I get a proper restore using pg_restore normally. If I 
>> however use -m for a parallel one I only get parts (in this case only 
>> 243 of the 709 tables) of the database restored ...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes, there are several funny things going on, including some stuff 
> with dependencies. I'll have a new patch tomorrow with luck. Thanks 
> for testing.
>
>

OK, in this version a whole heap of bugs are fixed, mainly those to do 
with dependencies and saved state. I get identical row counts in the 
source and destination now, quite reliably.

cheers

andrew

Attachment: parallel_restore_3.patch
Description: text/x-patch (36.4 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2008-09-29 04:24:48
Subject: Re: Ad-hoc table type?
Previous:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2008-09-29 02:31:26
Subject: Operation needed for datfrozenxid bug?

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