Re: patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2012-03-28 18:27:50
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZF8zhC94fsZqioWFZ7Tdc6VgzuWyemOjguziB8KWdreg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 28 14:46:30 -0300 2012:
>> I keep hoping someone who knows Windows is going to take a look at
>> this, but so far no luck.  It could also really use some attention
>> from someone who has an actual really big database handy, to see how
>> successful it is in reducing the dump time.  Without those things, I
>> can't see this getting committed.  But in the meantime, a few fairly
>> minor comments based on reading the code.
>
> My main comment about the current patch is that it looks like it's
> touching pg_restore parallel code by moving some stuff into parallel.c.
> If that's really the case and its voluminous, maybe this patch would
> shrink a bit if we could do the code moving in a first patch.  That
> would be mostly mechanical.  Then the interesting stuff would apply on
> top of that.  That would make review easier.

+1.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-03-28 19:09:07 Re: Finer Extension dependencies
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-03-28 18:20:46 Re: patch for parallel pg_dump