Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobd+Lh8sO7V4wow3-9cfOf45MoyDh3pHP+3mp+8VgNh_w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup  (Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:02 AM Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on my understanding your main concern is that the files won't be distributed fairly i.e one worker might get a
bigfile and take more time while others get done early with smaller files? In this approach I have created a list of
filesin descending order based on there sizes so all the big size files will come at the top. The maximum file size in
PGis 1GB so if we have four workers who are picking up file from the list one by one, the worst case scenario is that
oneworker gets a file of 1GB to process while others get files of smaller size. However with this approach of
descendingfiles based on size and handing it out to workers one by one, there is a very high likelihood of workers
gettingwork evenly. does this address your concerns? 

Somewhat, but I'm not sure it's good enough. There are lots of reasons
why two processes that are started at the same time with the same
amount of work might not finish at the same time.

I'm also not particularly excited about having the server do the
sorting based on file size.  Seems like that ought to be the client's
job, if the client needs the sorting.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: recovery_min_apply_delay in archive recovery causes assertionfailure in latch
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: let's kill AtSubStart_Notify