Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> However, at least for the directory-format case (which I think is the
>> only one supported for parallel restore), we could make it compare the
>> file sizes of the TABLE DATA items. That'd work pretty well as a proxy
>> for both the amount of effort needed for table restore, and the amount
>> of effort needed to build indexes on the tables afterwards.
> Parallel restore also works w/ custom-format dumps.
Really. Well then the existing code is even more broken, because it
only does this sorting for directory output:
/* If we do a parallel dump, we want the largest tables to go first */
if (archiveFormat == archDirectory && numWorkers > 1)
sortDataAndIndexObjectsBySize(dobjs, numObjs);
so that parallel restore is completely left in the lurch with a
custom-format dump.
But I imagine we can get some measure of table data size out of a custom
dump too.
regards, tom lane
