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. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
