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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers