Re: pg_dump test instability

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump test instability
Date: 2018-08-27 14:45:58
Message-ID: 1665.1535381158@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> However, at least for the directory-format case (which I think is the
>> only one supported for parallel restore), we could make it compare the
>> file sizes of the TABLE DATA items. That'd work pretty well as a proxy
>> for both the amount of effort needed for table restore, and the amount
>> of effort needed to build indexes on the tables afterwards.

> Parallel restore also works w/ custom-format dumps.

Really. Well then the existing code is even more broken, because it
only does this sorting for directory output:

/* If we do a parallel dump, we want the largest tables to go first */
if (archiveFormat == archDirectory && numWorkers > 1)
sortDataAndIndexObjectsBySize(dobjs, numObjs);

so that parallel restore is completely left in the lurch with a
custom-format dump.

But I imagine we can get some measure of table data size out of a custom
dump too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-08-27 15:38:40 Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2018-08-27 14:41:38 Re: pg_dump test instability