On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 18:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I am working on getting parallel pg_restore working. I'm currently > > getting all the scaffolding working, and hope to have a naive prototype > > posted within about a week. > > > The major question is how to choose the restoration order so as to > > maximize efficiency both on the server and in reading the archive. > > One of the first software design principles I ever learned was to > separate policy from mechanism. ISTM in this first cut you ought to > concentrate on mechanism and let the policy just be something dumb > (but coded separately from the infrastructure). We can refine it after > that.
Agreed. We musn't make too many built in assumptions about the best way to parallelise the restore. For example, running all CREATE INDEX at same time may help I/O on the scan but it may also swamp memory and force additional I/O as a result. We might need a setting for total memory available, so pg_restore can try not to run tasks that will exceed that across settings. Preferably this wouldn't be just a pg_restore setting. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers