On 04/24/2013 09:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > 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 :-)
hmm pretty sure that Joachims initial patch for parallel dump actually had a PoC for something very similiar to that... Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
