On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:24:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > On 12.01.2011 17:15, David Fetter wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:26:05AM +0100, marcin mank wrote: > >>> Considering that parallell base backups would be io-bound (or > >>> network-bound), there is little need to actually run them in > >>> parallell > >> > >> That's not actually true. Backups at the moment are CPU-bound, > >> and running them in parallel is one way to make them closer to > >> I/O-bound, which is what they *should* be. > > > That's a different kind of "parallel". We're talking about taking > > multiple backups in parallel, each using one process, and you're > > talking about taking one backup using multiple parallel processes > > or threads. > > Even more to the point, you're confusing pg_dump with a base backup. > The reason pg_dump eats a lot of CPU is primarily COPY's data > conversion and formatting requirements, none of which will happen in > a base backup (streaming or otherwise).
Oops. That'll teach me to post before coffee. :P Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
