Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
Date
Msg-id 20230723055703.GA2421212@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 07:47:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> I first tried modifying
>> binaryheap to use "int" or "void *" instead, but that ended up requiring
>> some rather invasive changes in backend code, not to mention any extensions
>> that happen to be using it.

I followed through with the "void *" approach (attached), and it wasn't as
bad as I expected.

> I wonder whether we can't provide some alternate definition or "skin"
> for binaryheap that preserves the Datum API for backend code that wants
> that, while providing a void *-based API for frontend code to use.

I can give this a try next, but it might be rather #ifdef-heavy.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: jian he
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 16 draft release notes ready
Next
From: jian he
Date:
Subject: Re: remaining sql/json patches