Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> Um, FKs could conflict with each other too, so that by itself isn't
>>>>> gonna fix anything.
>>>> Good point. Looks like we'll need to make a list of "can't run in
>>>> parallel with" items as well as strict dependencies.
>>> Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The current archive format
>>> doesn't really carry enough information for this. I think there
>>> are two basic solutions we could adopt:
>>> * 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.
>>> The former seems more flexible, as well as more in tune with the basic
>>> design assumption that pg_restore shouldn't have a lot of knowledge
>>> about individual archive object types. But it would mean that you
>>> couldn't use parallel restore with any pre-8.4 dumps. In the long run
>>> that's no big deal, but in the short run it's annoying.
>> hmm not sure how much of a problem that really is - we usually
>> recommend to use the pg_dump version of the target database anyway.
> We don't really need a huge amount of hardwiring as it turns out. Here
> is a version of the patch that tries to do what's needed in this area.
this one is much better - however I still seem to be able to create
deadlock scenarios with strange FK relations - ie FKs going in both
directions between two tables.
for those interested these are the timings on my 8 core testbox for my
single process restore: 169min
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-10-03 09:31:07|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function.|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2008-10-03 08:24:38|
|Subject: numeric_big test|