Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Matthew
Subject Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.64.0802211357020.20402@aragorn.flymine.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, this resulted in random errors from Postgres - something to do
>> with locked tables. So I changed it so that no two threads create indexes
>> for the same table at once, and that solved it.
>
> How long ago was that?  There used to be some issues with two CREATE
> INDEXes both trying to update the pg_class row, but I thought we'd fixed
> it.

It was a while back, and that sounds like exactly the error it returned.
It sounds like you have fixed it.

Matthew

--
Software suppliers are trying to make their software packages more
'user-friendly'.... Their best approach, so far, has been to take all
the old brochures, and stamp the words, 'user-friendly' on the cover.
-- Bill Gates

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about shared_buffers and cpu usage
Next
From: Guillaume Cottenceau
Date:
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?