Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 17:50:19
Message-ID: 4CFD225B.3020207@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/06/2010 12:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Ah. Ok.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-12-06 17:55:22 Re: profiling connection overhead
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-12-06 17:49:16 Re: profiling connection overhead