Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 12:43 -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:44:19 +0100
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 15:05 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> > > j and m happen to be two of those that are available.
> > >
> > > I honestly don't have a terribly strong opinion about what it
> > > should be called. I can live with jobs or multi-threads.
> >
> > Perhaps we can use -j for jobs and -m for memory, so we can set memory
> > available across all threads with a single total value.
> >
> > I can live with jobs or multi-threads also, whichever we decide.
> > Neither one is confusing to explain.
> >
> Memory? Where did that come from. Andrew is that in your spec?

No, but it's in mine. As I said upthread, no point in making it more
parallel than memory allows. Different operations need more/less memory
than others, so we must think about that also. We can quickly work out
how big a table is, so we can work out how much memory it will need to
perform sorts for index builds and thus how many parallel builds can
sensibly take place.

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:

No comments: