Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Sam Mason" <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-08-07 15:39:19
Message-ID: 4A7C0457020000250002965F@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

> Yes, all that sounds as though you've got it.

Thanks. I read through it carefully a few times, but I was still only
80% confident that I had it more-or-less right. ;-)

That does seem like a good test, with the advantage of being
relatively easy to calculate. Thanks again for suggesting it.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-07 15:40:58 Re: Fixing geometic calculation
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-08-07 15:35:39 Re: Alpha releases: How to tag