Re: pg_dump object sorting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_dump object sorting
Date
Msg-id 10990.1208194894@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump object sorting  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: pg_dump object sorting  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I should have expressed it better. The idea is to have pg_dump emit the 
> objects in an order that allows the restore to take advantage of sync 
> scans. So sync scans being disabled in pg_dump would not at all matter.

Unless you do something to explicitly parallelize the operations,
how will a different ordering improve matters?

I thought we had a paper design for this, and it involved teaching
pg_restore how to use multiple connections.  In that context it's
entirely up to pg_restore to manage the ordering and ensure dependencies
are met.  So I'm not seeing how it helps to have a different sort rule
at pg_dump time --- it won't really make pg_restore's task any easier.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Lessons from commit fest
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Lessons from commit fest