From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Concurrent connections in psql |
Date: | 2007-03-28 10:04:44 |
Message-ID: | 460A3DBC.1000708@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I would love, love, love to be able to use this syntax within pg_dump as
>> well, so we can create multiple indexes in parallel at restore time.
>
> I can hardly conceive of greater folly than putting an *experimental*
> psql facility into pg_dump scripts, thereby forcing us to support it
> until the end of time.
We could write a [awk | perl | scripting language of your choice]-script
to transform CREATE INDEX statements in normal pg_dump output to use
the concurrent psql commands. That way we don't need to modify pg_dump.
Whether or not to build indexes should be a restore-time, not dump-time
option anyway. Whether you want it or not it depends on the target, not
the source.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-03-28 10:14:02 | Re: Patch queue concern |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-28 09:07:27 | Re: [PATCHES] Full page writes improvement, code update |