| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)huawei(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jan Lentfer <Jan(dot)Lentfer(at)web(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ] |
| Date: | 2014-07-18 20:24:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20140718202400.GN11811@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes wrote:
> Should we push the refactoring through anyway? I have a hard time
> believing that pg_dump is going to be the only client program we ever have
> that will need process-level parallelism, even if this feature itself does
> not need it. Why make the next person who comes along re-invent that
> re-factoring of this wheel?
I gave the refactoring patch a look some days ago, and my conclusion was
that it is reasonably sound but it needed quite some cleanup in order
for it to be committable. Without any immediate use case, it's hard to
justify going through all that effort. Maybe we can add a TODO item and
have it point to the posted patch, so that if in the future we see a
need for another parallel client program we can easily rebase the
current patch.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-18 20:27:55 | Re: Proposal for updating src/timezone |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-07-18 19:58:14 | Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ] |