| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-03 16:23:48 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikqXMPUk9Mnn+BvWyiouajGTQJPAOM--G0Zanbc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-03 16:31:27 | Re: improving foreign key locks |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-03 14:37:45 | Re: should we set hint bits without dirtying the page? |