On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 07:56, vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 16:29, Juan José Santamaría Flecha > <juanjo.santama...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 3:51 PM Frédéric Yhuel <frederic.yh...@dalibo.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 8/17/23 14:00, Frédéric Yhuel wrote: > >> > On 8/17/23 09:32, Frédéric Yhuel wrote: > >> >> On 8/10/23 17:06, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote: > >> >>> Recently I restored a database from a directory format backup and > >> >>> having this feature would have been quite useful > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for resuming work on this patch. I forgot to mention this in my > >> >> original email, but the motivation was also to speed up the restore > >> >> process. Parallelizing the FK checks could make a huge difference in > >> >> certain cases. We should probably provide such a test case (with perf > >> >> numbers), and maybe this is it what Robert asked for. > >> > > >> > I have attached two scripts which demonstrate the following problems: > > > > > > Thanks for the scripts, but I think Robert's concerns come from the safety, > > and not the performance, of the parallel operation. > > > > Proving its vulnerability could be easy with a counter example, but > > assuring its safety is trickier. What test would suffice to do that? > > I'm seeing that there has been no activity in this thread for more > than 5 months, I'm planning to close this in the current commitfest > unless someone is planning to take it forward. It can be opened again > when there is more interest.
Since the author or no one else showed interest in taking it forward and the patch had no activity for more than 5 months, I have changed the status to RWF. Feel free to add a new CF entry when someone is planning to resume work more actively. Regards, Vignesh
