Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
Date: 2023-09-01 17:05:46
Message-ID: 20230901170546.GC3178187@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:53:36AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is a polished patch set for this approach. I've also added a 0004
> that replaces the open-coded heap in pg_dump_sort.c with a binaryheap.
> IMHO these patches are in decent shape.

I'm hoping to commit these patches at some point in the current commitfest.
I don't sense anything tremendously controversial, and they provide a
pretty nice speedup in some cases. Are there any remaining concerns?

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthias van de Meent 2023-09-01 17:26:56 GenBKI emits useless open;close for catalogs without rows
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-09-01 16:55:35 Re: Fwd: BUG #18016: REINDEX TABLE failure