Re: Allow parallel plan for referential integrity checks?

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 16:29, Juan José Santamaría Flecha
<juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:51 PM Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/17/23 14:00, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
>> > On 8/17/23 09:32, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
>> >> On 8/10/23 17:06, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
>> >>> Recently I restored a database from a directory format backup and
>> >>> having this feature would have been quite useful
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for resuming work on this patch. I forgot to mention this in my
>> >> original email, but the motivation was also to speed up the restore
>> >> process. Parallelizing the FK checks could make a huge difference in
>> >> certain cases. We should probably provide such a test case (with perf
>> >> numbers), and maybe this is it what Robert asked for.
>> >
>> > I have attached two scripts which demonstrate the following problems:
>
>
> Thanks for the scripts, but I think Robert's concerns come from the safety, and not the performance, of the parallel operation.
>
> Proving its vulnerability could be easy with a counter example, but assuring its safety is trickier. What test would suffice to do that?

I'm seeing that there has been no activity in this thread for more
than 5 months, I'm planning to close this in the current commitfest
unless someone is planning to take it forward. It can be opened again
when there is more interest.

Regards,
Vignesh