Feedback-ID: i76984098:Fastmail
Message-ID: <06ebbd51-217a-4cbc-970a-d8960b0f79ed@aklaver.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 08:23:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Performance issues during pg_restore -j with big partitioned
 table
To: Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
References: <84379bfb-bbda-84e6-cacc-e863ba9d6c37@gmx.net>
 <67469c1c-38bc-7d94-918a-67033f5dd731@gmx.net>
 <e20bb700-b547-46d5-b157-2cfd195e9820@aklaver.com>
 <a7a7c010-0f06-ad2b-3e69-a8d2fb3239fe@gmx.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
In-Reply-To: <a7a7c010-0f06-ad2b-3e69-a8d2fb3239fe@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/06ebbd51-217a-4cbc-970a-d8960b0f79ed%40aklaver.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 4/4/25 08:09, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> 
>> On 4/4/25 06:13, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
>>>  On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>  Bug? This happened on a postgres compiled from last week's master 
>>> branch.
>>
>> Are you talking about the dev version?
> 
> In this thread, yes. My mistake I didn't mention it from the start. I
> compiled it in order to see if the problems I mentioned in my previous
> thread were fixed.

Since it still has not established that an actual problem exists in 
previous versions, this is premature. Especially as dev has not even 
reached alpha AFAIK.

To get at a solution more detailed information is needed. I would also 
suggest testing using something less the 1000 large partitions.

Information needed for any given report:

1) Postgres version being dumped from.

2) The complete pg_dump command.

3) The Postgres version being restored to.

4) The complete pg_restore command.

5) The error messages.

Also have you tried a schema only dump/restore?

> 
> 
> Dimitris
> 

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com