Re: Performance issues during pg_restore -j with big partitioned table

From: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
To: Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance issues during pg_restore -j with big partitioned table
Date: 2025-04-02 17:45:29
Message-ID: 7be2dcc6-3ba4-4e3f-a154-8d13d816aa9b@aklaver.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 4/2/25 10:39 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>

> --clean will drop the object entirely not TRUNCATE.
>
> I'm guessing that this is being done by you per:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53760c70-4a87-a453-9e02-57abc9cb2e54%40gmx.net
>
> "After each failed attempt, I need to issue a TRUNCATE table1,table2,...
> before I try again. "

Oops, forgot to engage brain.

From pg_backup_archiver.c:

* In parallel restore, if we created the table earlier in
* this run (so that we know it is empty) and we are not
* restoring a load-via-partition-root data item then we
* wrap the COPY in a transaction and precede it with a
* TRUNCATE. If wal_level is set to minimal this prevents
* WAL-logging the COPY. This obtains a speedup similar
* to that from using single_txn mode in non-parallel
* restores.
*
* We mustn't do this for load-via-partition-root cases
* because some data might get moved across partition
* boundaries, risking deadlock and/or loss of previously
* loaded data. (We assume that all partitions of a
* partitioned table will be treated the same way.)

>
>>
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Dimitris
>>
>>
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitrios Apostolou 2025-04-02 17:46:43 Re: Performance issues during pg_restore -j with big partitioned table
Previous Message Dimitrios Apostolou 2025-04-02 17:42:01 Re: Experience and feedback on pg_restore --data-only