From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Testing of parallel restore with current snapshot |
Date: | 2009-05-29 21:42:53 |
Message-ID: | 28267.1243633373@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Tom,
>> Is anyone interested enough to try it if I code it?
> If you're patient for results, sure. I seem to be doing a customer
> migration or upgrade every week now, so it wouldn't take me long to have
> a test subject with a fairly complex database.
Here's a draft patch that does ordering using two lists, as I proposed.
Please test to see if it's any faster or slower than the original logic.
Note: since this changes struct TocEntry, be sure to recompile all files
in src/bin/pg_dump/ after patching.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
alternate-parallel-restore-1.patch.gz | application/octet-stream | 3.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2009-05-29 21:43:20 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-29 21:26:25 | Re: search_path vs extensions |