| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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: | 2010-12-06 18:24:27 |
| Message-ID: | 29177.1291659867@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm still not convinced that using shared memory is a bad way to
>>> pass these around. Surely we're not talking about large numbers
>>> of them. What am I missing here?
>>
>> They're not of a very predictable size.
> Surely you can predict that any snapshot is no larger than a fairly
> small fixed portion plus sizeof(TransactionId) * MaxBackends?
No. See subtransactions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-06 18:28:39 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 18:23:36 | Re: allow COPY routines to read arbitrary numbers of fields |