From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
Date: | 2008-07-26 16:56:42 |
Message-ID: | 1217091402.3894.1185.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The key problem is that pg_restore is broken:
>
> > The key capability here is being able to split the dump into multiple
> > pieces. The equivalent capability on restore is *not* required, because
> > once the dump has been split the restore never needs to be.
>
> This argument is nonsense.
> The typical usage of this capability, IMHO, will be
Arghh! That's not my stated use case!?#*!
I want to dump tables separately for performance reasons. There are
documented tests showing 100% gains using this method. There is no gain
adding this to pg_restore. There is a gain to be had - parallelising
index creation, but this patch doesn't provide parallelisation.
Anyway, clearly time for me to stop and have a break.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-07-26 16:59:10 | Re: pg_dump(all) library |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-26 16:46:48 | Re: pg_dump(all) library |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-26 17:43:06 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-07-26 16:43:55 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |