Re: parallel pg_restore

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore
Date: 2008-09-22 07:53:16
Message-ID: 200809220953.19208.dfontaine@hi-media.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Le lundi 22 septembre 2008, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
> > You'd really want the latter anyway for some cases, ie, when you don't
> > want the restore trying to hog the machine. Maybe the right form for
> > the extra option is just a limit on how many connections to use. Set it
> > to one to force the exact restore order, and to other values to throttle
> > how much of the machine the restore tries to eat.
>
> My intention is to have single-thread restore remain the default, at
> least for this go round, and have the user be able to choose
> --multi-thread=nn to specify the number of concurrent connections to use.

What about the make famous -j option?

-j [jobs], --jobs[=jobs]
Specifies the number of jobs (commands) to run simultaneously. If
there is more than one -j option, the last one is effective. If
the -j option is given without an argument, make will not limit
the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.

Regards,
--
dim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2008-09-22 08:57:32 Initial prefetch performance testing
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-22 07:46:26 Re: Toasted table not deleted when no out of line columns left