Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot
Date: 2010-02-27 03:09:26
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I don't see this as every having been applied. What should we do with


Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom,
> >> Is anyone interested enough to try it if I code it?
> > If you're patient for results, sure. I seem to be doing a customer
> > migration or upgrade every week now, so it wouldn't take me long to have
> > a test subject with a fairly complex database.
> Here's a draft patch that does ordering using two lists, as I proposed.
> Please test to see if it's any faster or slower than the original logic.
> Note: since this changes struct TocEntry, be sure to recompile all files
> in src/bin/pg_dump/ after patching.
> regards, tom lane

Content-Description: alternate-parallel-restore-1.patch.gz

[ Type application/octet-stream treated as attachment, skipping... ]

> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
PG East:
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-02-27 03:11:49 Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-02-27 03:07:00 Re: add_path optimization