From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Date: | 2016-12-04 01:45:44 |
Message-ID: | 20161204014544.55snjukv3xcuesyb@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > What do we need to teach pg_restore about parallel CREATE INDEX, if
> > anything at all? Could this be as simple as a blanket disabling of
> > parallelism for CREATE INDEX from pg_restore? Or, does it need to be
> > more sophisticated than that? I suppose that tools like reindexdb and
> > pgbench must be considered in a similar way.
>
> I still haven't resolved this question, which seems like the most
> important outstanding question,
I don't think a patch must necessarily consider all possible uses that
the new feature may have. If we introduce parallel index creation,
that's great; if pg_restore doesn't start using it right away, that's
okay. You, or somebody else, can still patch it later. The patch is
still a step forward.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-12-04 02:37:49 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-12-04 01:29:01 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |