From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump object sorting |
Date: | 2008-04-14 17:41:34 |
Message-ID: | 10990.1208194894@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I should have expressed it better. The idea is to have pg_dump emit the
> objects in an order that allows the restore to take advantage of sync
> scans. So sync scans being disabled in pg_dump would not at all matter.
Unless you do something to explicitly parallelize the operations,
how will a different ordering improve matters?
I thought we had a paper design for this, and it involved teaching
pg_restore how to use multiple connections. In that context it's
entirely up to pg_restore to manage the ordering and ensure dependencies
are met. So I'm not seeing how it helps to have a different sort rule
at pg_dump time --- it won't really make pg_restore's task any easier.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-14 17:52:38 | Terminating a backend |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-14 17:40:12 | Re: Lessons from commit fest |