Re: parallel restore vs. windows

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(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 00:32:33
Message-ID: 493F0E21.9050508@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner wrote:
> 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.
>
>

No, it's not. It's not used in any thread except the main thread.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Emmanuel Cecchet 2008-12-10 00:51:05 Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Previous Message Philip Warner 2008-12-10 00:19:58 Re: parallel restore vs. windows