Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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