On 04/24/2013 03:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/24/2013 03:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 04/23/2013 07:53 PM, Timothy Garnett wrote:
Anyways, the question is if people think this is generally useful.
If so
I can clean up the preferred choice a bit and rebase it off of master,
etc.
I find this idea very useful yes.
Another idea would be to allow for parallel pg_dump output to somehow be
piped into a parallel pg_restore. I don't know how to solve that at all,
it just sound something worthy of doing too.
That's not going to work, the output from parallel pg_dump is
inherently multiple streams. That's why it ONLY supports directory
format, and not even custom format on disk, let alone a pipe.
What might make sense is something like pg_dump_restore which would have
no intermediate storage at all, just pump the data etc from one source
to another in parallel. But I pity the poor guy who has to write it :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
