Re: patch for parallel pg_dump

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Date: 2012-03-28T18:27:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 28 14:46:30 -0300 2012:
>> I keep hoping someone who knows Windows is going to take a look at
>> this, but so far no luck.  It could also really use some attention
>> from someone who has an actual really big database handy, to see how
>> successful it is in reducing the dump time.  Without those things, I
>> can't see this getting committed.  But in the meantime, a few fairly
>> minor comments based on reading the code.
>
> My main comment about the current patch is that it looks like it's
> touching pg_restore parallel code by moving some stuff into parallel.c.
> If that's really the case and its voluminous, maybe this patch would
> shrink a bit if we could do the code moving in a first patch.  That
> would be mostly mechanical.  Then the interesting stuff would apply on
> top of that.  That would make review easier.

+1.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company