| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2009-05-29 21:42:53 |
| Message-ID: | 28267.1243633373@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| alternate-parallel-restore-1.patch.gz | application/octet-stream | 3.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2009-05-29 21:43:20 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-29 21:26:25 | Re: search_path vs extensions |