Re: pg_dump object sorting

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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