On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 23:03, Kumar, Sachin <ssetiya@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/12/2023, 01:43, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> > I had initially supposed that in a parallel restore we could
> > have child workers also commit after every N TOC items, but was
> > soon disabused of that idea. After a worker processes a TOC
> > item, any dependent items (such as index builds) might get
> > dispatched to some other worker, which had better be able to
> > see the results of the first worker's step. So at least in
> > this implementation, we disable the multi-command-per-COMMIT
> > behavior during the parallel part of the restore. Maybe that
> > could be improved in future, but it seems like it'd add a
> > lot more complexity, and it wouldn't make life any better for
> > pg_upgrade (which doesn't use parallel pg_restore, and seems
> > unlikely to want to in future).
>
> I was not able to find email thread which details why we are not using
> parallel pg_restore for pg_upgrade. IMHO most of the customer will have single large
> database, and not using parallel restore will cause slow pg_upgrade.
>
> I am attaching a patch which enables parallel pg_restore for DATA and POST-DATA part
> of dump. It will push down --jobs value to pg_restore and will restore database sequentially.
CFBot shows that the patch does not apply anymore as in [1]:
=== Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
46a0cd4cefb4d9b462d8cc4df5e7ecdd190bea92 ===
=== applying patch ./v9-005-parallel_pg_restore.patch
patching file src/bin/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.c
Hunk #3 FAILED at 650.
1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
src/bin/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.c.rej
Please post an updated version for the same.
[1] - http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_46_4713.log
Regards,
Vignesh