Re: parallel restore vs. windows

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: parallel restore vs. windows
Date: 2008-12-10 00:19:58
Message-ID: 493F0B2E.6070204@rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I think pretty much everybody except Philip Warner has found the stuff
> around the TOC data structure and the "archiver" API to be confusing.
> I'm not immediately sure about a better design though, at least not if
> you don't want to duplicate a lot of code between the plain pg_dump and
> the pg_dump/pg_restore cases.
>

Here was I thinking it was more or less self-documenting and clear ;-).
But, yes, it is complex, and I can still see no way to reduce the
complexity. I should have some old notes on the code and am happy to
expand them as much as necessary.

If people want to nominate key areas of confusion, I will concentrate on
those first.

In terms of the current discussion, I am not sure I can help greatly;
writing cross-platform thread code is non-trivial. One minor point: I
noticed in early versions of the code that a global AH had been created
-- it occurs to me that this could be problem.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-12-10 00:32:33 Re: parallel restore vs. windows
Previous Message Andrew Chernow 2008-12-09 23:28:47 Re: parallel restore vs. windows