From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump object sorting |
Date: | 2008-04-14 16:42:09 |
Message-ID: | 1208191329.4478.115.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 11:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I have been looking at refining the sorting of objects in pg_dump to
> make it take advantage of buffering and synchronised scanning, and
> possibly make parallel restoration simpler and more efficient.
>
Synchronized scanning is explicitly disabled in pg_dump. That was a
last-minute change to answer Greg Stark's complaint about dumping a
clustered table:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00987.php
That hopefully won't be a permanent solution, because I think
synchronized scans are useful for pg_dump.
However, I'm not clear on how the pg_dump order would be able to better
take advantage of synchronized scans anyway. What did you have in mind?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-04-14 16:45:40 | Re: Lessons from commit fest |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2008-04-14 16:37:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Remove lossy-operator RECHECK flag? |