| From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 05:09:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.64.0801290006040.1881@leary.csoft.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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.
Kris Jurka
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hans-Juergen Schoenig | 2008-01-29 07:52:39 | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-29 03:31:58 | Re: Transition functions for SUM(::int2), SUM(::int4, SUM(::int8]) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-01-29 08:20:41 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanningGUCvariable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-29 02:29:43 | Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation |