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

Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2008-09-30 03:26:00
Message-ID: 48E19C48.7010402@rhyme.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>
> + 					if (strcmp(te->desc,"CONSTRAINT") == 0 ||
> + 						strcmp(te->desc,"FK CONSTRAINT") == 0 ||
> + 						strcmp(te->desc,"CHECK CONSTRAINT") == 0 ||
> + 						strcmp(te->desc,"TRIGGER") == 0 ||
> + 						strcmp(slots[i].te->desc,"CONSTRAINT") == 0 ||
> + 						strcmp(slots[i].te->desc,"FK CONSTRAINT") == 0 ||
> + 						strcmp(slots[i].te->desc,"CHECK CONSTRAINT") == 0 ||
> + 						strcmp(slots[i].te->desc,"TRIGGER") == 0)
>   
Really just an observation from the peanut gallery here, but every time
pg_restore hard-codes this kind of thing, it introduces yet another
possible side-effect bug when someone, eg, adds a new TOC type.

Would it substantially decrease the benefits of the patch to skip *any*
toc entry that shares dependencies with another? (rather than just those
listed above).


 


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-09-30 03:59:23
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2008-09-30 01:52:07
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches

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