From: | Timothy Garnett <tgarnett(at)panjiva(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |
Date: | 2013-04-25 20:01:38 |
Message-ID: | CAPcyiQ1XGzp-sifGECagu3=gwjFSiwh-woVfyL85vfOF+zfNww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <
> stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
>
>> > What might make sense is something like pg_dump_restore which would have
>> > no intermediate storage at all, just pump the data etc from one source
>> > to another in parallel
>>
>
> That's right, I implemented that as an own output format and named it
> "migrator" I think, which wouldn't write each stream to a file as the
> directory output format does but that instead pumps it back into a restore
> client.
>
> I could revisit that patch for 9.4 if enough people are interested.
>
> Joachim
>
As the OP, I'll just note that my organization would definitely find use
for a parallel migrator tool as long as it supported doing a selection of
tables (i.e. -t / -T) in addition to the whole database and it supported or
we were able to patch in an option to cluster as part of the migration (the
equivalent of something like
https://github.com/tgarnett/postgres/commit/cc320a71 ).
Tim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2013-04-25 21:06:45 | Re: Allowing parallel pg_restore from pipe |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-25 19:54:55 | Re: [ADMIN] Simultaneous index creates on different schemas cause deadlock? |