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

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 4F5F0C7302000025000461EA@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: patch for parallel pg_dump  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: patch for parallel pg_dump  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> (I'm also unconvinced that sorting by relation size is a good idea
> anyway.  Anything that makes the dump order less predictable gets
> push-back, IME.)
Given that people often use diff on files from pg_dump,
unpredictable ordering can be a bad thing.  On the other hand, that
is not something you would probably want to do with the output of a
*parallel* dump, so if it only affect that, it probably makes sense.
It seems like a reasonable heuristic to avoid having all but some
big table done, and having to wait for that while the other
processors are sitting idle.
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig
Date:
Subject: WIP: cross column correlation, 2nd shot
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump