Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> The other possibility here is that this just doesn't work.  :-)
>
> That's why we wanted to test it ;-).
>
> I don't have time to look right now, but ISTM the original discussion
> that led to making that patch had ideas about scenarios where it would
> be faster.  It'd be worth digging that up and seeing if the current
> tests covered the case or not.

This is what I've been able to find on a quick look:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg00678.php

Sounds like Kevin may want to try renaming some of his indices to
produce intermingling...

...Robert