Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2010-12-06 17:28:10
Message-ID: 28168.1291656490@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Yeah. I'm still not convinced that using shared memory is a bad way to
> pass these around. Surely we're not talking about large numbers of them.
> What am I missing here?

They're not of a very predictable size.

Robert's idea of publish() returning a temp file identifier, which then
gets removed at transaction end, might work all right.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-06 17:31:54 Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-06 17:24:15 Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child