On Wednesday, January 16, 2013, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us <javascript:;>) wrote: > > I am not sure how a COPY could be easily parallelized, but I supposed it > > could be done as part of the 1GB segment feature. People have > > complained that COPY is CPU-bound, so it might be very interesting to > > see if we could offload some of that parsing overhead to a child. > > COPY can certainly be CPU bound but before we can parallelize that > usefully we need to solve the problem around extent locking when trying > to do multiple COPY's to the same table. >
I think that is rather over-stating it. Even with unindexed untriggered tables, I can get some benefit from doing hand-rolled parallel COPY before the extension lock becomes an issue, at least on some machines. And with triggered or indexed tables, all the more so. Cheers, Jeff
