Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Date: 2008-07-21 20:38:57
Message-ID: 17578.1216672737@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> As far as the documentation/definition aspect goes, I think it should
>> just say the parts are
>> * stuff needed before you can load the data
>> * the data
>> * stuff needed after loading the data

> Even that is a lie though, which I guess is what my problem is.

True; the stuff done after is done that way at least in part for
performance reasons rather than because it has to be done that way.
(I think it's not only performance issues, though --- for circular
FKs you pretty much have to load the data first.)

>> I hadn't realized that Simon was using "pre-schema" and "post-schema"
>> to name the first and third parts.  I'd agree that this is confusing
>> nomenclature: it looks like it's trying to say that the data is the
>> schema, and the schema is not!  How about "pre-data and "post-data"?

> Argh.  The command-line options follow the 'data'/'load' line
> (--schema-pre-load and --schema-post-load), and so I think those are
> fine.  The problem was that in the documentation he switched to saying
> they were "Pre-Schema" and "Post-Schema", which could lead to confusion.

Ah, I see.  No objection to those switch names, at least assuming we
want to stick to positive-logic switches.  What did you think of the
negative-logic suggestion (--omit-xxx)?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2008-07-21 20:55:49
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2008-07-21 20:38:35
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2008-07-21 21:00:57
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-21 20:33:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hint Bits and Write I/O

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group