Horton

Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-09-01T17:05:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:53:36AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is a polished patch set for this approach.  I've also added a 0004
> that replaces the open-coded heap in pg_dump_sort.c with a binaryheap.
> IMHO these patches are in decent shape.

I'm hoping to commit these patches at some point in the current commitfest.
I don't sense anything tremendously controversial, and they provide a
pretty nice speedup in some cases.  Are there any remaining concerns?

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Commits

  1. Remove open-coded binary heap in pg_dump_sort.c.

  2. Convert pg_restore's ready_list to a priority queue.

  3. Add function for removing arbitrary nodes in binaryheap.

  4. Make binaryheap available to frontend code.