| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2012-03-14 21:13:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoap939+kWLrMvtHGcnKCCTZEj28MDQ7H1WUhoYWuxrp1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> I've just started looking at the patch, and I'm curious to know why it
> didn't follow the pattern of parallel pg_restore which created a new worker
> for each table rather than passing messages to looping worker threads as
> this appears to do. That might have avoided a lot of the need for this
> message passing infrastructure, if it could have been done. But maybe I just
> need to review the patch and the discussions some more.
Hmm, I hadn't actually considered that idea. Not sure whether it's
better or worse than the current implementation...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-14 21:14:37 | Re: CREATE FOREGIN TABLE LACUNA |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-03-14 21:11:21 | Re: Faster compression, again |