Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
Date: 2023-09-01 17:41:41
Message-ID: 563498.1693590101@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm hoping to commit these patches at some point in the current commitfest.
> I don't sense anything tremendously controversial, and they provide a
> pretty nice speedup in some cases. Are there any remaining concerns?

I've not actually looked at any of these patchsets after the first one.
I have added myself as a reviewer and will hopefully get to it within
a week or so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-09-01 17:43:30 Re: GenBKI emits useless open;close for catalogs without rows
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-09-01 17:31:43 Re: Adding a pg_get_owned_sequence function?