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

Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables
Date: 2012-11-05 21:01:22
Message-ID: CABUevEyREEfsvgJyZNAgnkeCDqCvB5kS5KbG8R1omoJcRSuHXg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov  5, 2012 at 03:30:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >> BTW, does pg_upgrade run pg_restore in --single-transaction mode?
> > >> That would probably make synchronous_commit moot, at least for that
> > >> step.
> >
> > > It doesn't use pg_restore at all - it uses the dump from pg_dumpall,
> which
> > > you can't reload with pg_restore.
> >
> > Sorry, I should've said psql --single-transaction.  Although that isn't
> > going to work either given the presence of \connect commands in the
> > script.  I wonder whether pg_dumpall ought to have some sort of "one
> > transaction per database please" option.
>
> pg_dumpall is already doing lots of gymnastics with SQL, and pg_upgrade
> splits the output file into db/user creation and object creation, so I
> am hesitant to add anything more in there.
>

What about running pg_dump in a loop instead of pg_dumpall?



-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-11-05 21:04:12
Subject: Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables
Previous:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2012-11-05 20:57:27
Subject: Re: RFC: Timing Events

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