Re: Read-ahead and parallelism in redo recovery

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> I know that Simon has some ideas about parallel restored, though I don't
> know how he wants to solve the dependency issues involved. Perhaps by
> not parallelizing withon one table or index...

I think we should be *extremely* cautious about introducing any sort of
parallelism or other hard-to-test behavior into xlog recovery.  Bugs
in that area will by definition bite people at the worst possible time.
And we already know that we don't have very good testing ability for
xlog recovery, because some pretty nasty bugs have gone undetected
for long periods.

			regards, tom lane