| From: | Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
| Date: | 2008-02-21 13:58:16 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0802211357020.20402@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, this resulted in random errors from Postgres - something to do
>> with locked tables. So I changed it so that no two threads create indexes
>> for the same table at once, and that solved it.
>
> How long ago was that? There used to be some issues with two CREATE
> INDEXes both trying to update the pg_class row, but I thought we'd fixed
> it.
It was a while back, and that sounds like exactly the error it returned.
It sounds like you have fixed it.
Matthew
--
Software suppliers are trying to make their software packages more
'user-friendly'.... Their best approach, so far, has been to take all
the old brochures, and stamp the words, 'user-friendly' on the cover.
-- Bill Gates
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2008-02-21 17:28:58 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2008-02-21 12:24:01 | Re: Question about shared_buffers and cpu usage |