On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:25:24AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 11/14/2012 10:08 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 06:11:27AM +0200, Ants Aasma wrote: > >> > >>I agree that parallel restore for schemas is a hard problem. But I > >>didn't mean parallelism within the restore, I meant that we could > >>start both postmasters and pipe the output from dump directly to > >>restore. This way the times for dumping and restoring can overlap. > >Wow, that is a very creative idea. The current code doesn't do that, > >but this has the potential of doubling pg_upgrade's speed, without > >adding a lot of complexity. Here are the challenges of this approach: > > > >* I would need to log the output of pg_dumpall as it is passed to psql > >so users can debug problems > > > Instead of piping it directly, have pg_upgrade work as a tee, > pumping bytes both to psql and a file. This doesn't seem terribly > hard.
Right. It isn't hard. > >* pg_upgrade never runs the old and new clusters at the same time for > >fear that it will run out of resources, e.g. shared memory, or if they > >are using the same port number. We can make this optional and force > >different port numbers. > > > Right. OK. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
