Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2010-12-02 23:12:15
Message-ID: 201012022312.oB2NCF119818@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't see the point of the sort-by-relpages code. The order the objects
> > are dumped should be irrelevant, as long as you obey the restrictions
> > dictated by dependencies. Or is it only needed for the multiple-target-dirs
> > feature? Frankly I don't see the point of that, so it would be good to cull
> > it out at least in this first stage.
>
> >From the talk at CHAR(10), and provided memory serves, it's an
> optimisation so that you're doing largest file in a process and all the
> little file in other processes. In lots of case the total pg_dump
> duration is then reduced to about the time to dump the biggest files.

Seems there should be a comment in the code explaining why this is being
done.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2010-12-02 23:37:05 Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-12-02 22:32:16 Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump