Moving onto the directory archive part of this patch, the feature seems
to work as advertised; here's a quick test case:
createdb pgbench
pgbench -i -s 1 pgbench
pg_dump -F d -f test
pg_restore -k test
pg_restore -l test
createdb copy
pg_restore -d copy test
The copy made that way looked good.
On 16.12.2010 12:12, Greg Smith wrote:
Moving onto the directory archive part of this patch, the feature seems
to work as advertised; here's a quick test case:
createdb pgbench
pgbench -i -s 1 pgbench
pg_dump -F d -f test
pg_restore -k test
pg_restore -l test
createdb copy
pg_restore -d copy
On 16.12.2010 17:23, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 16.12.2010 12:12, Greg Smith wrote:
There's a number of small things that I'd like to see improved in new
rev of this code
...
In addition to those:
...
One more thing: the motivation behind this patch is to allow parallel
pg_dump in the
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
One more thing: the motivation behind this patch is to allow parallel
pg_dump in the future, so we should be make sure this patch caters well for
that.
As soon as we have parallel pg_dump, the next
On 16.12.2010 19:58, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
One more thing: the motivation behind this patch is to allow parallel
pg_dump in the future, so we should be make sure this patch caters well for
that.
As
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
As soon as we have parallel pg_dump, the next big thing is going to be
parallel dump of the same table using multiple processes. Perhaps we should
prepare for that in the directory archive format, by
On 16.12.2010 20:33, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
As soon as we have parallel pg_dump, the next big thing is going to be
parallel dump of the same table using multiple processes. Perhaps we should
prepare
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 16.12.2010 20:33, Joachim Wieland wrote:
How exactly would you just split the table in chunks of roughly the
same size ?
Check pg_class.relpages, and divide that evenly across the processes.
That should be good enough.
Not
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 16.12.2010 20:33, Joachim Wieland wrote:
How exactly would you just split the table in chunks of roughly the
same size ?
Check pg_class.relpages, and divide
On 16.12.2010 22:13, Robert Haas wrote:
So how bad would it be if we committed this new format without support
for splitting large relations into multiple files, or with some stub
support that never actually gets used, and fixed this later? Because
this is starting to sound like a bigger
On 12/16/2010 03:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
So how bad would it be if we committed this new format without support
for splitting large relations into multiple files, or with some stub
support that never actually gets used, and fixed this later? Because
this is starting to sound like a bigger
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 12/16/2010 03:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
So how bad would it be if we committed this new format without support
for splitting large relations into multiple files, or with some stub
support that never actually gets used, and fixed this later?
On Thursday 16 December 2010 19:33:10 Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
As soon as we have parallel pg_dump, the next big thing is going to be
parallel dump of the same table using multiple processes.
On 17.12.2010 00:29, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thursday 16 December 2010 19:33:10 Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
As soon as we have parallel pg_dump, the next big thing is going to be
parallel dump of the
On Thursday 16 December 2010 23:34:02 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 17.12.2010 00:29, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thursday 16 December 2010 19:33:10 Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
As soon as we have
On 12/16/2010 03:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes:
On 12/16/2010 03:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
So how bad would it be if we committed this new format without support
for splitting large relations into multiple files, or with some stub
support that never
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Ok, committed, with some small cleanup since the last patch I posted.
Could you update the directory-format patch on top of the committed version,
please?
Thanks for committing the first part. Here
On 02.12.2010 23:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of jue dic 02 16:52:27 -0300 2010:
Ok, committed, with some small cleanup since the last patch I posted.
I think the comments on _ReadBuf and friends need to be updated, since
they are not just for headers
Ok, committed, with some small cleanup since the last patch I posted.
Could you update the directory-format patch on top of the committed
version, please?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of jue dic 02 16:52:27 -0300 2010:
Ok, committed, with some small cleanup since the last patch I posted.
I think the comments on _ReadBuf and friends need to be updated, since
they are not just for headers and TOC stuff anymore. I'm not sure if
they
On 29.11.2010 22:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 29.11.2010 07:11, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
* wrap long lines
* use extern in function prototypes in header files
* inline some functions like
On 01.12.2010 16:03, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 29.11.2010 22:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I combined those, and the Free/Flush steps, and did a bunch of other
editorializations and cleanups. Here's an updated patch, also available
in my git repository at
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Forgot attachment. This is also available in the above git repo.
I have quickly checked your modifications, on the one hand I like the
reduction of functions, I would have said that we have AH around
On 02.12.2010 04:35, Joachim Wieland wrote:
There is one thing however that I am not in favor of, which is the
removal of the sizeHint parameter for the read functions. The reason
for this parameter is not very clear now without LZF but I have tried
to put in a few comments to explain the
On 29.11.2010 07:11, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
* wrap long lines
* use extern in function prototypes in header files
* inline some functions like _StartDataCompressor, _EndDataCompressor,
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 29.11.2010 07:11, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
* wrap long lines
* use extern in function prototypes
On 29.11.2010 07:11, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
* wrap long lines
* use extern in function prototypes in header files
* inline some functions like _StartDataCompressor, _EndDataCompressor,
On 20.11.2010 06:10, Joachim Wieland wrote:
2010/11/19 José Arthur Benetasso Villanovajose.art...@gmail.com:
The md5.c and kwlookup.c reuse using a link doesn't look nice either.
This way you need to compile twice, among others things, but I think
that its temporary, right?
No, it isn't.
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
But I'm not actually sure we should be preventing mix match of files
from different dumps. It might be very useful to do just that sometimes,
like restoring a recent backup, with the contents of one table replaced
with older
On 22.11.2010 19:07, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
But I'm not actually sure we should be preventing mix match of files
from different dumps. It might be very useful to do just that sometimes,
like restoring a recent backup, with the contents of
Hi,
Sharing some thoughts after a first round of reviewing, where I only had
time to read the patch itself.
Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de writes:
Since the compression is currently all down in the custom format
backup code,
the first thing I've done was refactoring the compression
Hi Dimitri and Joachim.
I've looked the patch too, and I want to share some thoughts too. I've
used http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch to guide my
review.
Submission review:
I've apllied and compiled the patch successfully using the current master.
Usability review:
The dir
Excerpts from José Arthur Benetasso Villanova's message of vie nov 19 18:28:03
-0300 2010:
The md5.c and kwlookup.c reuse using a link doesn't look nice either.
This way you need to compile twice, among others things, but I think
that its temporary, right?
Not sure what you mean here, but
Hi Dimitri,
thanks for reviewing my patch!
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
I think I'd like to see a separate patch for the new compression
support. Sorry about that, I realize that's extra work…
I guess it wouldn't be a very big deal but I also
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
I think I'd like to see a separate patch for the new compression
support. Sorry about that, I realize that's extra workâ¦
That part of the patch is likely to get rejected outright anyway,
so I *strongly* recommend splitting it out. We have
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
I think I'd like to see a separate patch for the new compression
support. Sorry about that, I realize that's extra work…
That part of the patch is likely to get rejected
Hi Jose,
2010/11/19 José Arthur Benetasso Villanova jose.art...@gmail.com:
The dir format generated in my database 60 files, with different
sizes, and it looks very confusing. Is it possible to use the same
trick as pigz and pbzip2, creating a concatenated file of streams?
What pigz is
37 matches
Mail list logo
