Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore

From: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore
Date: 2010-02-10 04:11:08
Message-ID: 20100210131107.47ED.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > We have an optimization to bulkload date in pg_restore, but the code
> > only works in parallel restore (--jobs >= 2). Why don't we do the
> > same optimization in the serial restore (--jobs = 1) ?
>
> The code is only trying to substitute for something you can't have
> in parallel restore, ie --single-transaction.

Yeah, the comment says so. But it does not necessarily mean that
we cannot optimize the copy also in non-single-transaction restore.

The attached patch improve the judgment condition,
I'll add it to the next commit-fest.

Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment Content-Type Size
restore-wal-skip_20100210.patch application/octet-stream 1.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-02-10 04:13:52 Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-02-10 03:59:50 Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch