| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel pg_restore |
| Date: | 2008-09-22 18:03:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1222106611.4445.210.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 09:30 -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:24:28 +0100
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > More importantly, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. It seems more
> > > like a footgun that will potentially try to launch thousands of
> > > simultaneous restore connections. I should have thought that
> > > optimal performance would be reached at some small multiple (say
> > > maybe 2?) of the number of CPUs on the server. You could achieve
> > > unlimited parallelism by saying something like --jobs=99999, but
> > > I'd rather that were done very explicitly instead of as the default
> > > value of the parameter.
> >
> > OK, sounds best.
> >
>
> I will not argue vehemently here but I will say that "jobs" doesn't
> seem correct. The term "workers" seems more appropriate.
Agreed, but most utilities have "j" free but not w, p, t or other
letters that might be synonyms.
j is at least used for exactly this purpose in other tools.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-22 18:14:18 | Re: Initial prefetch performance testing |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-09-22 17:54:34 | Re: [PATCH] allow has_table_privilege(..., 'usage') on sequences |