Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 29177.1291659867@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I'm still not convinced that using shared memory is a bad way to 
>>> pass these around. Surely we're not talking about large numbers
>>> of them.  What am I missing here?
>> 
>> They're not of a very predictable size.
> Surely you can predict that any snapshot is no larger than a fairly
> small fixed portion plus sizeof(TransactionId) * MaxBackends?

No.  See subtransactions.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: allow COPY routines to read arbitrary numbers of fields
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump