Re: add --no-sync to pg_upgrade's calls to pg_dump and pg_dumpall

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: add --no-sync to pg_upgrade's calls to pg_dump and pg_dumpall
Date: 2024-05-09 19:58:37
Message-ID: 191F8200-688E-4B70-8B45-B3DD1BBF11B9@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 9 May 2024, at 21:34, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 09:03:56AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> +1. Could there be an argument in favor of a backpatch? This is a
>> performance improvement, but one could also side that the addition of
>> sync support in pg_dump[all] has made that a regression that we'd
>> better fix because the flushes don't matter in this context. They
>> also bring costs for no gain.
>
> I don't see a strong need to back-patch this, if for no other reason than
> it seems to have gone unnoticed for 7 major versions. Plus, based on my
> admittedly limited testing, this is unlikely to provide significant
> improvements.

Agreed, this is a nice little improvement but it's unlikely to be enough of a
speedup to warrant changing the backbranches.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2024-05-09 20:05:43 Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes
Previous Message Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker 2024-05-09 19:53:27 Re: Is there an undocumented Syntax Check in Meson?