Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/03/2010 11:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Josh Berkus' comments in the thread you mentioned are correct:
>>>
>>>> Actually, I'd say that there's a broad set of cases of people who want
>>>> to do a parallel pg_dump while their system is active.  Parallel pg_dump
>>>> on a stopped system will help some people (for migration, particularly)
>>>> but parallel pg_dump with snapshot cloning will help a lot more people.
>>
>> But you failed to quote the rest of what he said:
>>
>>> So: if parallel dump in single-user mode is what you can get done, then
>>> do it.  We can always improve it later, and we have to start somewhere.
>>> But we will eventually need parallel pg_dump on active systems, and
>>> that should remain on the TODO list.
>
> Right, and the reason I don't think that's right is that it seems to me like
> a serious potential footgun.
>
> But in any case, the reason I quoted Josh was in answer to a different
> point, namely Tom's statement about the limited potential uses.

I know the use cases are limited, but I think it's still useful on its own.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company