| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: where should I stick that backup? |
| Date: | 2020-04-17 02:22:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZuChaFMKJB6u+b78CyeH_EAFDf8eAz_KLohC1GQ9P78Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:55 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah. I think we really need to understand the performance
> characteristics of pipes better. If they're slow, then anything that
> needs to be fast has to work some other way (but we could still
> provide a pipe-based slow way for niche uses).
Hmm. Could we learn what we need to know about this by doing something
as taking a basebackup of a cluster with some data in it (say, created
by pgbench -i -s 400 or something) and then comparing the speed of cat
< base.tar | gzip > base.tgz to the speed of gzip < base.tar >
base.tgz? It seems like there's no difference between those except
that the first one relays through an extra process and an extra pipe.
I don't know exactly how to do the equivalent of this on Windows, but
I bet somebody does.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-04-17 03:37:12 | Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more. |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-04-17 02:12:44 | Re: fixing old_snapshot_threshold's time->xid mapping |