| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-06 22:46:31 |
| Message-ID: | 4CFD67C7.1020703@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> However, if you were doing something like parallel pg_dump you could
> just run the parent and child instances all against the slave, so the
> pg_dump scenario doesn't seem to offer much of a supporting use-case for
> worrying about this. When would you really need to be able to do it?
If you had several standbys, you could distribute the work of the
pg_dump among them. This would be a huge speedup for a large database,
potentially, thanks to parallelization of I/O and network. Imagine
doing a pg_dump of a 300GB database in 10min.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-12-06 23:56:26 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-06 22:20:53 | Re: serializable read only deferrable |