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: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Date: 2008-02-26 18:29:39
Message-ID: 47C45A93.8090603@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Since the performance advantages are still somewhat hypothetical,
> I think we should reach for the low-hanging fruit first. If concurrent
> pg_restore really does prove to be the best thing since sliced bread,
> *then* would be the time to start thinking about whether it's possible
> to do the same thing in less-constrained scenarios.
>
>
>

Amen. pg_restore is where all the work should be going first, I believe.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2008-02-26 18:32:59 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-02-26 18:18:04 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance