From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
Date: | 2008-12-10 00:19:58 |
Message-ID: | 493F0B2E.6070204@rhyme.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think pretty much everybody except Philip Warner has found the stuff
> around the TOC data structure and the "archiver" API to be confusing.
> I'm not immediately sure about a better design though, at least not if
> you don't want to duplicate a lot of code between the plain pg_dump and
> the pg_dump/pg_restore cases.
>
Here was I thinking it was more or less self-documenting and clear ;-).
But, yes, it is complex, and I can still see no way to reduce the
complexity. I should have some old notes on the code and am happy to
expand them as much as necessary.
If people want to nominate key areas of confusion, I will concentrate on
those first.
In terms of the current discussion, I am not sure I can help greatly;
writing cross-platform thread code is non-trivial. One minor point: I
noticed in early versions of the code that a global AH had been created
-- it occurs to me that this could be problem.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-12-10 00:32:33 | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-12-09 23:28:47 | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |