On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:05:39AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> > >>On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> > >> Claudio, Stephen, > >> > >> It really seems like the areas where we could get the most "bang for > >> the > >> buck" in parallelism would be: > >> > >> 1. Parallel sort > >> 2. Parallel aggregation (for commutative aggregates) > >> 3. Parallel nested loop join (especially for expression joins, like > >> GIS) > >> > >>parallel data load? :/ > >We have that in pg_restore, and I thinnk we are getting parallel dump in > >9.3, right? Unfortunately, I don't see it in the last 9.3 commit-fest. > >Is it still being worked on? > > > > > I am about half way through reviewing it. Unfortunately paid work > take precedence over unpaid work.
Do you think it will make it into 9.3? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
