Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070907290401v4706fe37gd6a687a4870e7cd2@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> The other possibility here is that this just doesn't work.  :-)
>
> That's why we wanted to test it ;-).
>
> I don't have time to look right now, but ISTM the original discussion
> that led to making that patch had ideas about scenarios where it would
> be faster.  It'd be worth digging that up and seeing if the current
> tests covered the case or not.

This is what I've been able to find on a quick look:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg00678.php

Sounds like Kevin may want to try renaming some of his indices to
produce intermingling...

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql: support identif%TYPE[], (from ToDo)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT