| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| 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 03:59:23 |
| Message-ID: | 48E1A41B.4070207@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner wrote:
>> + 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).
>
>
>
Unfortunately, it quite possibly would. You would not be able to build
two indexes on the same table in parallel, even though they wouldn't
have conflicting locks.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2008-09-30 04:13:06 | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2008-09-30 03:26:00 | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch |