Re: Allow parallel plan for referential integrity checks?

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 07:56, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 16:29, Juan José Santamaría Flecha
> <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:51 PM Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/17/23 14:00, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
> >> > On 8/17/23 09:32, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
> >> >> On 8/10/23 17:06, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> >> >>> Recently I restored a database from a directory format backup and
> >> >>> having this feature would have been quite useful
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for resuming work on this patch. I forgot to mention this in my
> >> >> original email, but the motivation was also to speed up the restore
> >> >> process. Parallelizing the FK checks could make a huge difference in
> >> >> certain cases. We should probably provide such a test case (with perf
> >> >> numbers), and maybe this is it what Robert asked for.
> >> >
> >> > I have attached two scripts which demonstrate the following problems:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the scripts, but I think Robert's concerns come from the safety, and not the performance, of the parallel operation.
> >
> > Proving its vulnerability could be easy with a counter example, but assuring its safety is trickier. What test would suffice to do that?
>
> I'm seeing that there has been no activity in this thread for more
> than 5 months, I'm planning to close this in the current commitfest
> unless someone is planning to take it forward. It can be opened again
> when there is more interest.

Since the author or no one else showed interest in taking it forward
and the patch had no activity for more than 5 months, I have changed
the status to RWF. Feel free to add a new CF entry when someone is
planning to resume work more actively.

Regards,
Vignesh