Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, marcin mank <marcin.mank@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-01-12T15:24:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 12.01.2011 17:15, David Fetter wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:26:05AM +0100, marcin mank wrote: >>> Considering that parallell base backups would be io-bound (or >>> network-bound), there is little need to actually run them in parallell >> >> That's not actually true. Backups at the moment are CPU-bound, and >> running them in parallel is one way to make them closer to I/O-bound, >> which is what they *should* be. > That's a different kind of "parallel". We're talking about taking > multiple backups in parallel, each using one process, and you're talking > about taking one backup using multiple parallel processes or threads. Even more to the point, you're confusing pg_dump with a base backup. The reason pg_dump eats a lot of CPU is primarily COPY's data conversion and formatting requirements, none of which will happen in a base backup (streaming or otherwise). regards, tom lane