| From: | Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, Christophe Courtois <christophe(dot)courtois(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY to partitioned table, is not parallelized |
| Date: | 2025-06-05 14:13:54 |
| Message-ID: | 90e55c6b-3d79-4bf8-8874-a64dd10a0286@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 6/4/25 16:12, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> In general I have noticed most operations are slower after a succesful
> pg_restore until VACUUM is complete, which is unfortunate as the
> database is huge and it takes days to run. Something I have on my list
> to try, is whether a COPY FREEZE would alleviate all this trouble, since
> all tuples are immediately visible then. Maybe a patch for a new
> pg_restore option --freeze is a better solution. Are my assumptions right?
It seems that the idea has already been discussed:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BU5nM%2BXvkUu9ran%2B5cY%3DTWQquLTpvzte4KVMK%3DaDfbr-xfNXA%40mail.gmail.com#b61a7fee06e10e61afa68712bc0b3c5b
I've CCed Bruce Mojman, in the hope that he can tell us more about it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Frédéric Yhuel | 2025-06-05 14:51:05 | Re: ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY to partitioned table, is not parallelized |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2025-06-04 20:22:06 | Re: proposal: schema variables |