Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 2:53 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 12:00:15PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Here is a sketch of this approach. It required fewer #ifdefs than I was
> > expecting. At the moment, this one seems like the winner to me.
>
> Here is a polished patch set for this approach. I've also added a 0004
> that replaces the open-coded heap in pg_dump_sort.c with a binaryheap.
> IMHO these patches are in decent shape.

[ drive-by comment that hopefully doesn't cause too much pain ]

In hindsight, I think that making binaryheap depend on Datum was a bad
idea. I think that was my idea, and I think it wasn't very smart.
Considering that people have coded to that decision up until now, it
might not be too easy to change at this point. But in principle I
guess you'd want to be able to make a heap out of any C data type,
rather than just Datum, or just Datum in the backend and just void *
in the frontend.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com