| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore |
| Date: | 2010-02-10 04:13:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4B723280.5010106@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>
>> We have an optimization to bulkload date in pg_restore, but the code
>> only works in parallel restore (--jobs >= 2). Why don't we do the
>> same optimization in the serial restore (--jobs = 1) ?
>>
>
> The code is only trying to substitute for something you can't have
> in parallel restore, ie --single-transaction.
>
>
>
Exactly. IIRC that's why --single-transaction was introduced in the
first place.
Takahiro-san is suggesting there is a case for doing the optimisation in
non-parallel mode. But if we do that, is there still a case for
--single-transaction?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-10 04:19:04 | Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-02-10 04:11:08 | Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore |