On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan <aduns...@postgresql.org> wrote:
> I've just started looking at the patch, and I'm curious to know why it
> didn't follow the pattern of parallel pg_restore which created a new worker
> for each table rather than passing messages to looping worker threads as
> this appears to do. That might have avoided a lot of the need for this
> message passing infrastructure, if it could have been done. But maybe I just
> need to review the patch and the discussions some more.

Hmm, I hadn't actually considered that idea.  Not sure whether it's
better or worse than the current implementation...

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to