On 04/24/2013 03:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 04/24/2013 03:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>> On 04/23/2013 07:53 PM, Timothy Garnett wrote:
>>>> Anyways, the question is if people think this is generally useful.
>>>> If so
>>>> I can clean up the preferred choice a bit and rebase it off of master,
>>>> etc.
>> I find this idea very useful yes.
>>
>> Another idea would be to allow for parallel pg_dump output to somehow be
>> piped into a parallel pg_restore. I don't know how to solve that at all,
>> it just sound something worthy of doing too.
>>
>
>
> That's not going to work, the output from parallel pg_dump is
> inherently multiple streams. That's why it ONLY supports directory
> format, and not even custom format on disk, let alone a pipe.
>
What might make sense is something like pg_dump_restore which would have
no intermediate storage at all, just pump the data etc from one source
to another in parallel. But I pity the poor guy who has to write it :-)
cheers
andrew
