Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
Date: 2008-09-29 11:55:03
Message-ID: 48E0C217.4070007@kaltenbrunner.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> this works better but there is something fishy still - using the same
>>> dump file I get a proper restore using pg_restore normally. If I
>>> however use -m for a parallel one I only get parts (in this case only
>>> 243 of the 709 tables) of the database restored ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there are several funny things going on, including some stuff
>> with dependencies. I'll have a new patch tomorrow with luck. Thanks
>> for testing.
>>
>>
>
> OK, in this version a whole heap of bugs are fixed, mainly those to do
> with dependencies and saved state. I get identical row counts in the
> source and destination now, quite reliably.

this looks much better (for a restore that usually takes 180min I can
get down to 72min using -m 4) - however especially with higher
concurrency I'm sometimes running into restore failures due to deadlocks
happening during constraint restoration (slightly redacted):

pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 7765; 2606 1460743180
FK CONSTRAINT fk_av_relations_av db_owner
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: deadlock
detected
DETAIL: Process 18100 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation
1460818342 of database 1460815284; blocked by process 18103.
Process 18103 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation 1460818336 of
database 1460815284; blocked by process 18100.
HINT: See server log for query details.

ALTER TABLE ONLY foo
ADD CONSTRAINT fk_av_relations_av FOREIGN KEY (vs_id) REFERENCES
bar ...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-29 12:06:23 Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
Previous Message pgsql 2008-09-29 11:16:30 Re: Ad-hoc table type?