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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>,Robert Klemme <shortcutter(at)googlemail(dot)com>,Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas
Date: 2012-05-31 15:06:50
Message-ID: 20120531150650.GG26894@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >>> I'm not; Jeff Janes is.  But you shouldn't be holding your breath
> >>> anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point.
> >
> >> I agree we can't back-patch that change, but then I think we ought to
> >> consider back-patching some variant of Tatsuo's patch.  Maybe it's not
> >> reasonable to thunk an arbitrary number of relation names in there on
> >> one line, but how about 1000 relations per LOCK statement or so?  I
> >> guess we'd need to see how much that erodes the benefit, but we've
> >> certainly done back-branch rearrangements in pg_dump in the past to
> >> fix various kinds of issues, and this is pretty non-invasive.
> >
> > I am not convinced either that this patch will still be useful after
> > Jeff's fix goes in, ...
> 
> But people on older branches are not going to GET Jeff's fix.

FYI, if it got into Postgres 9.2, everyone upgrading to Postgres 9.2
would benefit because pg_upgrade uses the new cluster's pg_dumpall.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-05-31 15:25:37
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-05-31 15:04:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-05-31 15:23:19
Subject: Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of)
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-05-31 15:04:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas

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