From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Size of regression database |
Date: | 2014-11-14 19:39:50 |
Message-ID: | 20141114193950.GO1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was testing backwards compatibility of pg_dumpall just now, and was
> > somewhat astonished to notice the size of the output for the regression
> > database compared to what it was not too long ago:
> >
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4509135 Nov 13 16:19 dumpall.83
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4514441 Nov 13 16:24 dumpall.84
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4666917 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.90
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4681235 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.91
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5333587 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.92
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5409083 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.93
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5493686 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.94
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 27151777 Nov 13 16:21 dumpall.head
> >
> > A quick eyeball check says that that quintupling of the database size
> > is all in BRIN index tests. Could we dial that back to something a
> > bit saner please?
>
> Oops. Sure, will see about this.
Now a pg_dumpall for me is 5510969 bytes which seems reasonable.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-11-14 19:51:45 | Re: Segmentation fault in pg_dumpall from master down to 9.1 and other bug introduced by RLS |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-14 18:42:05 | Re: PostgreSQL doesn't stop propley when --slot option is specified with pg_receivexlog. |