"Kumar, Sachin" <sset...@amazon.com> writes: >> On 11/12/2023, 01:43, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us >> <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: >> ... Maybe that >> could be improved in future, but it seems like it'd add a >> lot more complexity, and it wouldn't make life any better for >> pg_upgrade (which doesn't use parallel pg_restore, and seems >> unlikely to want to in future).
> I was not able to find email thread which details why we are not using > parallel pg_restore for pg_upgrade. Well, it's pretty obvious isn't it? The parallelism is being applied at the per-database level instead. > IMHO most of the customer will have single large > database, and not using parallel restore will cause slow pg_upgrade. You've offered no justification for that opinion ... > I am attaching a patch which enables parallel pg_restore for DATA and > POST-DATA part > of dump. It will push down --jobs value to pg_restore and will restore > database sequentially. I don't think I trust this patch one bit. It makes way too many assumptions about how the --section options work, or even that they will work at all in a binary-upgrade situation. I've spent enough time with that code to know that --section is pretty close to being a fiction. One point in particular is that this would change the order of ACL restore relative to other steps, which almost certainly will cause problems for somebody. regards, tom lane