From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Timothy Garnett <tgarnett(at)panjiva(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |
Date: | 2013-04-24 19:49:19 |
Message-ID: | 5178373F.6090604@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/24/2013 03:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 04/23/2013 07:53 PM, Timothy Garnett wrote:
>>> Anyways, the question is if people think this is generally useful. If so
>>> I can clean up the preferred choice a bit and rebase it off of master,
>>> etc.
> I find this idea very useful yes.
>
> Another idea would be to allow for parallel pg_dump output to somehow be
> piped into a parallel pg_restore. I don't know how to solve that at all,
> it just sound something worthy of doing too.
>
That's not going to work, the output from parallel pg_dump is inherently
multiple streams. That's why it ONLY supports directory format, and not
even custom format on disk, let alone a pipe.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-04-24 19:51:52 | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-04-24 19:40:17 | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |