|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Subject:||Re: Experimenting with hash tables inside pg_dump|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-10-22 10:53:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm skeptical of that, mainly because it doesn't work in old servers,
> I think we can address that, if we think it's overall a promising approach to
> pursue. E.g. if we don't need the indexes, we can make it = ANY().
Hmm ... yeah, I guess we could get away with that. It might not scale
as nicely to a huge database, but probably dumping a huge database
from an ancient server isn't all that interesting.
I'm inclined to think that it could be sane to make getTableAttrs
and getIndexes use this style, but we probably still want functions
and such to use per-object queries. In those other catalogs there
are many built-in objects that we don't really care about. The
prepared-queries hack I was working on last night is probably plenty
good enough there, and it's a much less invasive patch.
Were you planning to pursue this further, or did you want me to?
I'd want to layer it on top of the work I did at , else there's
going to be lots of merge conflicts.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||John Naylor||2021-10-22 15:55:05||Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson|
|Previous Message||David Steele||2021-10-22 15:41:21||Allow root ownership of client certificate key|