Re: patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2012-03-13 14:04:34
Message-ID: 201203131504.35047.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 02:48:11 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> (I'm also unconvinced that sorting by relation size is a good idea
> anyway. Anything that makes the dump order less predictable gets
> push-back, IME.)
Why? Especially in the directory format - which is a prerequisite for parallel
dump if I remember this correctly - I don't really see a negative point in a
slightly changing dump order. Given its not deterministic anyway.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2012-03-13 14:05:25 Explicitly specifying use of IN/OUT variable in PL/pgSQL functions
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2012-03-13 13:59:31 Re: patch for parallel pg_dump