Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I should have expressed it better. The idea is to have pg_dump emit the
> objects in an order that allows the restore to take advantage of sync
> scans. So sync scans being disabled in pg_dump would not at all matter.
Unless you do something to explicitly parallelize the operations,
how will a different ordering improve matters?
I thought we had a paper design for this, and it involved teaching
pg_restore how to use multiple connections. In that context it's
entirely up to pg_restore to manage the ordering and ensure dependencies
are met. So I'm not seeing how it helps to have a different sort rule
at pg_dump time --- it won't really make pg_restore's task any easier.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
