From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Timothy Garnett <tgarnett(at)panjiva(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |
Date: | 2013-04-24 19:51:52 |
Message-ID: | 517837D8.10807@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/24/2013 03:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 04/24/2013 03:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>> On 04/23/2013 07:53 PM, Timothy Garnett wrote:
>>>> Anyways, the question is if people think this is generally useful.
>>>> If so
>>>> I can clean up the preferred choice a bit and rebase it off of master,
>>>> etc.
>> I find this idea very useful yes.
>>
>> Another idea would be to allow for parallel pg_dump output to somehow be
>> piped into a parallel pg_restore. I don't know how to solve that at all,
>> it just sound something worthy of doing too.
>>
>
>
> That's not going to work, the output from parallel pg_dump is
> inherently multiple streams. That's why it ONLY supports directory
> format, and not even custom format on disk, let alone a pipe.
>
What might make sense is something like pg_dump_restore which would have
no intermediate storage at all, just pump the data etc from one source
to another in parallel. But I pity the poor guy who has to write it :-)
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2013-04-24 20:05:19 | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-04-24 19:49:19 | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |