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

Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

From: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Date: 2008-01-29 05:09:28
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.64.0801290006040.1881@leary.csoft.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Jeff Davis wrote:

> I think that pg_dump is a reasonable use case for synchoronized scans
> when the table has not been clustered. It could potentially make pg_dump
> have much less of a performance impact when run against an active
> system.
>

One of the advantages I see with maintaining table dump order is that 
rsyncing backups to remote locations will work better.

Kris Jurka


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hans-Juergen SchoenigDate: 2008-01-29 07:52:39
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 03:31:58
Subject: Re: Transition functions for SUM(::int2), SUM(::int4, SUM(::int8])

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-01-29 08:20:41
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanningGUCvariable
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 02:29:43
Subject: Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation

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