Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, I'll bet the restore code doesn't realize that this can't run in
>>> parallel with index creation on either table ...
>>>
>
>
>> Yeah. Of course, it's never needed to bother with stuff like that till now.
>>
>
>
>> The very simple fix is probably to run a separate parallel cycle just
>> for FKs, after the index creation.
>>
>
> Um, FKs could conflict with each other too, so that by itself isn't
> gonna fix anything.
>
>
>
Good point. Looks like we'll need to make a list of "can't run in
parallel with" items as well as strict dependencies.
cheers
andrew
