Re: pg_upgrade --jobs

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 23:50:58
Message-ID: 20138.1554594658@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:
> Is the limitation simply the state of development to date or is there
> something about dumping the schemas that conflicts with paralleling?

At minimum, it'd take a complete redesign of pg_dump's output format,
and I'm not even very sure what such a redesign would look like. All
the schema information goes into a single file that has to be written
serially. Trying to make it be one file per table definition wouldn't
really fix much: somewhere there has to be a "table of contents", plus
where are you going to put the dependency info that shows what ordering
is required for restore?

> The --link option to pg_upgrade would be so much more useful if it
> weren't still bound to serially dumping the schemas of half a million
> tables.

To be perfectly blunt, if you've got a database with half a million
tables, You're Doing It Wrong.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2019-04-06 23:57:31 Re: pg_upgrade --jobs
Previous Message senor 2019-04-06 23:38:26 Re: pg_upgrade --jobs