Horton

Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-09-01T17:41:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> 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?

I've not actually looked at any of these patchsets after the first one.
I have added myself as a reviewer and will hopefully get to it within
a week or so.

			regards, tom lane

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.