| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | senor <frio_cervesa(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade --jobs |
| Date: | 2019-04-06 22:02:05 |
| Message-ID: | 16144.1554588125@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
senor <frio_cervesa(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> Since pg_upgrade is in control of how it is calling pg_dump, is there a reason pg_upgrade cannot use the directory output format when calling pg_dump? Is the schema-only operation incompatible?
Well, there's no point in it. pg_dump can only parallelize data dumping,
and there's none to be done in the --schema-only case that pg_upgrade
uses.
Also, since pg_upgrade *does* use parallelism across multiple pg_dump
calls (if you've got multiple databases in the cluster), it'd be a bit
problematic to have another layer of parallelism below that, if it did
indeed do anything. You don't want "--jobs=10" to suddenly turn into
100 sessions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | senor | 2019-04-06 23:38:26 | Re: pg_upgrade --jobs |
| Previous Message | senor | 2019-04-06 21:26:46 | Re: pg_upgrade --jobs |