From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch |
Date: | 2008-09-29 14:25:10 |
Message-ID: | 48E0E546.9030204@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Le lundi 29 septembre 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
>
>> * Extend the archive format to provide some indication that "restoring
>> this object requires exclusive access to these dependencies".
>>
>> * Hardwire knowledge into pg_restore that certain types of objects
>> require exclusive access to their dependencies.
>>
>
> Well, it seems to me that currently the FK needs in term of existing indexes
> and locks, and some other object lock needs, are all hardwired. Is it even
> safe to consider having the locks needed for certain commands not be
> hardwired?
>
> Provided I'm not all wrong here, I don't see how having something more
> flexible at restore time than at build time is a win. The drawback is that
> whenever you change a lock need in commands, you have to remember teaching
> pg_restore about it too.
>
> So my vote here is in favor of hardwired knowledge of pg_restore, matching
> target server code assumptions and needs.
>
>
Well, I've had to use some knowledge of various item types already, and
I have been trying not to disturb pg_dump also, so I'm inclined to build
this knowledge into pg_restore.
ISTM that "things that will have lock conflicts" are different and more
target version dependent than "things that logically depend on other
things", so we can still rely on pg_dump to some extent to provide the
latter while building the former at restore time.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-29 14:30:15 | Re: Fatal Errors |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-29 14:22:23 | Fatal Errors |