Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Date: 2008-02-26 15:15:39
Message-ID: 47C42D1B.90708@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:39:29AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, what exactly was the use-case for this?
>>>
>
>
>> One use-case would be when you have to make some small change to the schema
>> while reloading it, that's still compatible with the data format. Then
>> you'd dump schema-no-indexes-and-stuff, then *edit* that file, before
>> reloading things. It's a lot easier to edit the file if it's not hundreds
>> of gigabytes..
>>
>
> This is a use-case for having switches that *extract* convenient subsets
> of a dump archive. It does not mandate having pg_dump emit multiple
> files. You could extract, say, the pre-data schema into a text SQL
> script, edit it, load it, then extract the data and remainining script
> directly into the database from the dump file.
>
> In short, what I think we need here is just some more conveniently
> defined extraction filter switches than --schema-only and --data-only.
> There's no need for any fundamental change to pg_dump's architecture.
>
> Yes, I've read the subsequent discussion about a "directory" output
> format. I think it's pointless complication --- or at least, that it's
> a performance hack rather than a functionality one, with no chance of
> any actual performance gain until we've parallelized pg_restore, and
> with zero existing evidence that any gain would be had even then.
>
> BTW, if we avoid fooling with the definition of the archive format,
> that also means that the extraction-switch patch should be relatively
> independent of parallelization work, so the work could proceed
> concurrently.
>
>
>

I agree that they are really independent. There are enough reasons for
splitting the schema output into pre-data and post-data sections that we
should do that forthwith.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-02-26 15:15:59 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-02-26 15:12:04 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Link postgres from all object files at once, to avoid the