Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20230902185521.GA3414119@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 01:52:48PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 04:00:44PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> In hindsight, I think that making binaryheap depend on Datum was a bad >> idea. I think that was my idea, and I think it wasn't very smart. >> Considering that people have coded to that decision up until now, it >> might not be too easy to change at this point. But in principle I >> guess you'd want to be able to make a heap out of any C data type, >> rather than just Datum, or just Datum in the backend and just void * >> in the frontend. > > Yeah, something similar to simplehash for binary heaps could be nice. That > being said, I don't know if there's a strong reason to specialize the > implementation for a given C data type in most cases. I suspect many > callers are just fine with dealing with pointers (e.g., I wouldn't store an > entire TocEntry in the array), and smaller types like integers are already > stored directly in the array thanks to the use of Datum. However, it > _would_ allow us to abandon this frontend/backend void */Datum kludge, > which is something. I ended up hacking together a (nowhere near committable) patch to see how hard it would be to allow using any type with binaryheap. It doesn't seem too bad. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: