Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 11:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 09:53 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> My intention is to have single-thread restore remain the default, at
> >>> least for this go round, and have the user be able to choose
> >>> --multi-thread=nn to specify the number of concurrent connections to use.
> >>>
> >> What about the make famous -j option?
> >>
> >> -j [jobs], --jobs[=jobs]
> >> Specifies the number of jobs (commands) to run simultaneously. If
> >> there is more than one -j option, the last one is effective. If
> >> the -j option is given without an argument, make will not limit
> >> the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
>
> If that's the preferred name I have no problem. I'm not sure about the
> default argument part, though.
>
> First, I'm not sure out getopt infrastructure actually provides for
> optional arguments, and I am not going to remove it in pg_restore to get
> around such a problem, at least now.
>
> More importantly, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. It seems more like
> a footgun that will potentially try to launch thousands of simultaneous
> restore connections. I should have thought that optimal performance
> would be reached at some small multiple (say maybe 2?) of the number of
> CPUs on the server. You could achieve unlimited parallelism by saying
> something like --jobs=99999, but I'd rather that were done very
> explicitly instead of as the default value of the parameter.

OK, sounds best.

--
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