From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
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 14:50:51 |
Message-ID: | 10443.1338475851@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
I am not convinced either that this patch will still be useful after
Jeff's fix goes in, or that it provides any meaningful savings when
you consider a complete pg_dump run. Yeah, it will make the lock
acquisition phase faster, but that's not a big part of the runtime
except in very limited scenarios (--schema-only, perhaps).
The performance patches we applied to pg_dump over the past couple weeks
were meant to relieve pain in situations where the big server-side
lossage wasn't the dominant factor in runtime (ie, partial dumps).
But this one is targeting exactly that area, which is why it looks like
a band-aid and not a fix to me.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-31 14:58:11 | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-31 14:50:23 | Re: [RFC] Interface of Row Level Security |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-31 15:00:54 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-31 14:41:17 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas |