From: | "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 'Noah Misch' <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2012-09-05 15:56:33 |
Message-ID: | 54374abe-03c4-489f-8f05-adc6e87c2f45@email.android.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> schrieb:
>Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I don't find that a convincing comparison. Normally don't need to
>shutdown the
>> server between two pg_dump commands. Which very well might be
>scripted.
>
>> Especially as for now, without a background writer/checkpointer
>writing stuff
>> beforehand, the shutdown checkpoint won't be fast. IO isn't unlikely
>if youre
>> doing a pg_dump because of hint bits...
>
>I still think this is a straw-man argument. There is no expectation
>that a standalone PG implementation would provide performance for a
>series of standalone sessions that is equivalent to what you'd get from
>a persistent server. If that scenario is what's important to you,
>you'd
>use a persistent server. The case where this sort of thing would be
>interesting is where minimizing administration complexity (by not
>having
>a server) is more important than performance. People currently use,
>eg,
>SQLite for that type of application, and it's not because of
>performance.
I am not saying its bad that it is slower, that's absolutely OK. Just that it will take a variable amount of time till you can run pgdump again and its not easily detectable without looping and trying again.
Andres
---
Please excuse the brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-05 16:00:18 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-05 15:47:33 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |