From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_restore accepts -j -1
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:36:43 -0500
Message-ID: <20170111143643.GK18360@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFjFpRdSP_N8ZL=sXGvmZR1hF=PuieLyK3Xsvh=jr1v2Kf-70w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170110044815.GC18360@tamriel.snowman.net>
<CAFjFpRdSP_N8ZL=sXGvmZR1hF=PuieLyK3Xsvh=jr1v2Kf-70w@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Ashutosh,
* Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > For reasons which seem likely to be entirely unintentional, pg_restore
> > will accept a '-1' for -j:
> >
> > pg_restore -j -1
> >
> > This seems to result in the parallel state being NULL and so things
> > don't outright break, but it hardly seems likely to be what the user was
> > asking for- my guess is that they actually wanted "parallel, single
> > transaction", which we don't actually support:
> >
> > -> pg_restore -j 2 -1
> > pg_restore: cannot specify both --single-transaction and multiple jobs
> >
> > We also don't accept -1 for pg_dump:
> >
> > -> pg_dump -j -1
> > pg_dump: invalid number of parallel jobs
> >
> > If I'm missing something, please let me know, otherwise I'll plan to put
> > the same check into pg_restore which exists in pg_dump.
>
> Both the code blocks were added by 9e257a18, but I don't see any
> description of why they are different in pg_dump.c and pg_restore.c.
Right.
> In fact per comments in pg_restore.c, that condition should be same as
> pg_dump.c. I am not sure whether it's just for windows specific
> condition or the whole block. But I don't see any reason not to
> replicate the same conditions in pg_restore.c
I'm pretty sure that comment is about the Windows-specific check of
MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS, but I don't think there's any reason to accept a
zero or negative value for numWorkers.
Attached patch adds the same check to pg_restore that's in pg_dump
already. Looks like it should back-patch to 9.3 pretty cleanly and I'll
add a similar check for 9.2.
Any thoughts about adding the Windows-specific MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS
check to 9.2 pg_restore..? It certainly looks entirely straight-forward
to do, and though I don't recall hearing anyone complaining about trying
to run pg_restore on Windows with lots of jobs and having it fall over,
it might avoid a bit of frustration for anyone who does try.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
[text/x-diff] check_numworkers_pg_restore.patch (531B, ../20170111143643.GK18360@tamriel.snowman.net/2-check_numworkers_pg_restore.patch)
download | inline diff:diff --git a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.cnew file mode 100644index b21fd26..b69082d
*** a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c
--- b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c
*************** main(int argc, char **argv)
*** 402,407 ****
--- 402,413 ----
if (opts->tocFile)
SortTocFromFile(AH);
+ if (numWorkers <= 0)+ {+ fprintf(stderr, _("%s: invalid number of parallel jobs\n"), progname);+ exit(1);+ }+
/* See comments in pg_dump.c */
#ifdef WIN32
if (numWorkers > MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS)
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (818B, ../20170111143643.GK18360@tamriel.snowman.net/3-signature.asc)
download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: pg_restore accepts -j -1
In-Reply-To: <20170111143643.GK18360@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox