Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 20:24:08 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: optimizing pg_upgrade's once-in-each-database steps
Message-ID: <20240517012408.GA1691322@nathanxps13>
References: <20240516211638.GA1688936@nathanxps13>
 <3b97ab8e295ec3db22baa2dfdd49073449ae1696.camel@j-davis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3b97ab8e295ec3db22baa2dfdd49073449ae1696.camel@j-davis.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240517012408.GA1691322%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 05:09:55PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> How much complexity do you avoid by using async instead of multiple
> processes?

If we didn't want to use async, my guess is we'd want to use threads to
avoid complicated IPC.  And if we followed pgbench's example for using
threads, it might end up at a comparable level of complexity, although I'd
bet that threading would be the more complex of the two.  It's hard to say
definitively without coding it up both ways, which might be worth doing.

> Also, did you consider connecting once to each database and running
> many queries? Most of those seem like just checks.

This was the idea behind 347758b.  It may be possible to do more along
these lines.  IMO parallelizing will still be useful even if we do combine
more of the steps.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com