| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add --no-sync to pg_upgrade's calls to pg_dump and pg_dumpall |
| Date: | 2024-05-09 19:58:37 |
| Message-ID: | 191F8200-688E-4B70-8B45-B3DD1BBF11B9@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 9 May 2024, at 21:34, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 09:03:56AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +1. Could there be an argument in favor of a backpatch? This is a
>> performance improvement, but one could also side that the addition of
>> sync support in pg_dump[all] has made that a regression that we'd
>> better fix because the flushes don't matter in this context. They
>> also bring costs for no gain.
>
> I don't see a strong need to back-patch this, if for no other reason than
> it seems to have gone unnoticed for 7 major versions. Plus, based on my
> admittedly limited testing, this is unlikely to provide significant
> improvements.
Agreed, this is a nice little improvement but it's unlikely to be enough of a
speedup to warrant changing the backbranches.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-05-09 20:05:43 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
| Previous Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2024-05-09 19:53:27 | Re: Is there an undocumented Syntax Check in Meson? |