Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B723280.5010106@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore
Re: TRUNCATE+COPY optimization and --jobs=1 in pg_restore |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: > >> We have an optimization to bulkload date in pg_restore, but the code >> only works in parallel restore (--jobs >= 2). Why don't we do the >> same optimization in the serial restore (--jobs = 1) ? >> > > The code is only trying to substitute for something you can't have > in parallel restore, ie --single-transaction. > > > Exactly. IIRC that's why --single-transaction was introduced in the first place. Takahiro-san is suggesting there is a case for doing the optimisation in non-parallel mode. But if we do that, is there still a case for --single-transaction? cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: