From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net>
cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
        Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when
 jumping short distance forward
In-reply-to: <1306492.1760556110@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <2edb7a57-b225-3b23-a680-62ba90658fec@gmx.net>
 <a7344d8f-927c-1f97-6cc0-ac630deb98c4@gmx.net>
 <c0e531f9-accc-3a93-e9e6-2cec1471f9e9@gmx.net>
 <1282067.1744651649@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <c6bb93c1-4042-743c-096c-27c5e7c73347@gmx.net>
 <f7a23708-c336-c189-f155-4b3197bf6ea0@gmx.net> <aEioDuePEBRnfJYk@nathan>
 <5ed51587-5a24-4d79-e36e-927620d0e3a2@gmx.net> <aEygf8AchBk04gOA@nathan>
 <f99e9774-da49-60f0-20e0-b97d9f12a04e@gmx.net>
 <72d2c81b-a0fe-3d99-9dd4-0d771e6e673e@gmx.net>
 <1po8os49-r63o-2923-p37n-12698o1qn7p0@tzk.arg>
 <3515357.1760128017@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3698234.1760149336@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3686.1760232320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CBF70398-279C-4BA7-9FA1-2879A49F4EC9@gmail.com>
 <717335.1760389672@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1306492.1760556110@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Wed, 15 Oct 2025 15:21:50 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1518974.1760634070.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 13:01:10 -0400
Message-ID: <1518975.1760634070@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1518975.1760634070%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> I think this is more or less committable, and then we could get
> back to the original question of whether it's worth tweaking
> pg_restore's seek-vs-scan behavior.

And done.  Dimitrios, could you re-do your testing against current
HEAD, and see if there's still a benefit to tweaking pg_restore's
seek-vs-read decisions, and if so what's the best number?

			regards, tom lane