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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

No comments: