Re: pg_dump object sorting

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump object sorting
Date: 2008-04-14 16:42:09
Message-ID: 1208191329.4478.115.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 11:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I have been looking at refining the sorting of objects in pg_dump to
> make it take advantage of buffering and synchronised scanning, and
> possibly make parallel restoration simpler and more efficient.
>

Synchronized scanning is explicitly disabled in pg_dump. That was a
last-minute change to answer Greg Stark's complaint about dumping a
clustered table:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00987.php

That hopefully won't be a permanent solution, because I think
synchronized scans are useful for pg_dump.

However, I'm not clear on how the pg_dump order would be able to better
take advantage of synchronized scans anyway. What did you have in mind?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-04-14 16:45:40 Re: Lessons from commit fest
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2008-04-14 16:37:49 Re: [HACKERS] Remove lossy-operator RECHECK flag?