From: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |
Date: | 2007-05-24 22:34:35 |
Message-ID: | 377ABCF8-A407-47F3-88A8-F24FCD79D9B6@themactionfaction.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On May 24, 2007, at 18:21 , Chris Browne wrote:
>
> Jan Wieck had a proposal to a similar effect, namely to give some way
> to get one connection to duplicate the state of another one.
>
> This would permit doing a neat parallel decomposition of pg_dump: you
> could do a 4-way parallelization of it that would function something
> like the following:
>
> - connection 1 opens, establishes the usual serialized mode
> transaction
>
> - connection 1 dumps the table metadata into one or more files in a
> specified directory
>
> - then it forks 3 more connections, and seeds them with the same
> serialized mode state
>
> - it then goes thru and can dump 4 tables concurrently at a time,
> one apiece to a file in the directory.
>
> This could considerably improve speed of dumps, possibly of restores,
> too.
>
> Note that this isn't related to subtransactions...
Well, I was thinking that since transactions are now serializable, it
should be possible to move the state between existing open transactions.
-M
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Nolan | 2007-05-24 22:34:57 | Re: Corrupted index file after restoring WAL on warm spare server |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-05-24 22:32:23 | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |