Re[2]: Re: pg_dump and LOs (another proposal)

Hello Tom,

Wednesday, July 05, 2000, 9:06:33 PM, you wrote:

TL> Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> The thing that bugs me about this if for 30,000 rows, I do 30,000 updates
>> after the restore. It seems *really* inefficient, not to mention slow.

TL> Shouldn't be a problem. For one thing, I can assure you there are no
TL> databases with 30,000 LOs in them ;-) --- the existing two-tables-per-LO

Hmmm... I have 127865 LOs at the moment. :-))) But with my patch where
all LOs are usual files on FS. I will move it to one-table-for-all-LOs
after my holidays.

TL> infrastructure won't support it. (I think Denis Perchine has started
TL> to work on a replacement one-table-for-all-LOs solution, btw.) Possibly

You can try it. I sent it to pgsql-patches some time ago.

TL> more to the point, there's no reason for pg_restore to grovel through
TL> the individual rows for itself. Having identified a column that
TL> contains (or might contain) LO OIDs, you can do something like

--
Best regards,
Denis mailto:dyp(at)perchine(dot)com