Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
There are so many caveats on pg_migrator (and things that need to be
done after the migration is complete) that one starts to wonder if
people is not better off just using parallel pg_restore. From Stefan's
reported timings I'm not sure that pg_migrator is that much of a benefit
in the first place ... unless copy mode can be made much faster. (On
link mode it is so much faster that it's worth it, but then you don't
have an escape hatch).
That is accurate. I doubt copy mode speed can be improved.
Why not? Right now it's single-threaded. Would it be faster if it ran
several copies in parallel?
I guess it would be much faster on powerful hardware - we also have to
consider that copy mode now is a no-op really.
If it had to do any actual page conversation too it seems entirely
possible that a parallel restore might be even faster that a single
threaded pg_migrator in copy mode.
Stefan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
