From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Concurrent connections in psql |
Date: | 2007-03-27 21:24:17 |
Message-ID: | 46098B81.6080403@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 17:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> I would love, love, love to be able to use this syntax within pg_dump as
>>> well, so we can create multiple indexes in parallel at restore time.
>>> Anyone fancy adding that as well? We should be able to speed up overall
>>> index builds by x2 using concurrent builds.
>>>
>
>
>> You will need to teach pg_restore any trick you use here - it doesn't
>> use psql.
>>
>
> The proposed change is to psql and making it work with pg_restore would
> take a lot more thought, so probably not an 8.3 item. Should we make it
> to neither because we can't make it to both?
>
>
I'm all for the change to psql, but personally I think it's late in the
day to be specifying a change to pg_dump.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-03-27 22:47:19 | Re: Proposal: Adding JIS X 0213 support |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-27 21:13:47 | Re: Concurrent connections in psql |