| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 14:41:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa3OjFGfkru-XkbxKyysCWLHX-s4y1yVZYwYSdGp0Pc3A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> It's not clear whether Tom is already working on that O(N^2) fix in locking.
>
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-31 14:50:23 | Re: [RFC] Interface of Row Level Security |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-31 14:35:41 | Re: Issues with MinGW W64 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-31 14:50:51 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-31 14:31:16 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas |