| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |
| Date: | 2007-05-25 21:01:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20070525210113.GE15294@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Erik Jones wrote:
> And, to finish up, is there any reason that pg_restore couldn't
> already work with separate processes working in parallel?
The problem is that the ordering of objects in the dump is the only
thing that makes the dump consistent with regards to the dependencies of
objects. So pg_restore cannot make any assumptions of parallelisability
of the restoration process of objects in the dump.
pg_dump is the only one who has the dependency information.
If that information were to be saved in the dump, then maybe pg_restore
could work in parallel. But it seems a fairly non-trivial thing to do.
Mind you, while I am idling at this idea, it seems that just having
multiple processes generating a dump is not such a hot idea by itself,
because you then have no clue on how to order the restoration of the
multiple files that are going to result.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/DXLWNGRJD34J
"Para tener más hay que desear menos"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-25 21:28:43 | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |
| Previous Message | Justin M Wozniak | 2007-05-25 20:47:52 | Possible DB corruption |