Monday, September 22, 2008

Re: [HACKERS] parallel pg_restore

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:24:28 +0100
Simon Riggs <> wrote:

> > 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.

I will not argue vehemently here but I will say that "jobs" doesn't
seem correct. The term "workers" seems more appropriate.


Joshua D. Drake

The PostgreSQL Company since 1997:
PostgreSQL Community Conference:
United States PostgreSQL Association:
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

No comments: