Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, 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 11:26:44
Message-ID: 479F0D74.5080409@kaltenbrunner.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> I can't see what scenario you're talking about here. pg_dump your live
> database, restore it elsewhere, then shut down the production database and run
> rsync from the live database to the restored one? Why not just run rsync for
> the initial transfer?

take a dump (maybe in plaintext format) save it to disk and use rsync to
copy it elsewhere. the more "similiar" the dumps the more efficient
rsync can copy the data over.

Stefan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gevik Babakhani 2008-01-29 11:28:15 Re: How to use VB6 for store image to postgresql?
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2008-01-29 11:04:48 Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira de Oliveira 2008-01-29 13:31:01 Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2008-01-29 11:04:48 Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable