Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: "Joachim Wieland" <joe@mcknight.de>,"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-03-13T13:59:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > (I'm also unconvinced that sorting by relation size is a good idea > anyway. Anything that makes the dump order less predictable gets > push-back, IME.) Given that people often use diff on files from pg_dump, unpredictable ordering can be a bad thing. On the other hand, that is not something you would probably want to do with the output of a *parallel* dump, so if it only affect that, it probably makes sense. It seems like a reasonable heuristic to avoid having all but some big table done, and having to wait for that while the other processors are sitting idle. -Kevin