Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward

From: Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward
Date: 2025-10-16 18:59:05
Message-ID: 7115ECB3-2F13-4699-B279-D35C805A5123@gmx.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thank you for your work on this, Tom.
I'll try to test it in the weekend.

Dimitris

On 16 October 2025 19:01:10 CEST, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>I wrote:
>> I think this is more or less committable, and then we could get
>> back to the original question of whether it's worth tweaking
>> pg_restore's seek-vs-scan behavior.
>
>And done. Dimitrios, could you re-do your testing against current
>HEAD, and see if there's still a benefit to tweaking pg_restore's
>seek-vs-read decisions, and if so what's the best number?
>
> regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2025-10-16 18:59:48 Re: Making pg_rewind faster
Previous Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-10-16 18:34:58 Re: Buf fix: update-po for PGXS does not work