From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)pgexperts(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel pg_dump for 9.1 |
Date: | 2010-03-29 15:07:49 |
Message-ID: | 20100329150749.GA5544@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:46:48PM +0200, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> People have been talking about a parallel version of pg_dump a few
> times already. I have been working on some proof-of-concept code for
> this feature every now and then and I am planning to contribute this
> for 9.1.
>
> There are two main issues with a parallel version of pg_dump:
>
> The first one is that it requires a consistent snapshot among
> multiple pg_dump clients
Cloning snapshots seems like the way to fix this. I don't know how
far this project has drifted from the PostgreSQL code, but you might
want to look here:
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/snapclone/
> and the second is that currently the output goes to a single file
> and it is unclear what to do about multiple processes writing into a
> single file.
I don't think that's a good idea. Coming up with a directory
structure for the new parallel pg_dump seems like a much better idea.
Andrew, do you have some notes on this?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-29 15:20:21 | Re: enable_joinremoval |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-29 15:01:40 | Re: enable_joinremoval |