From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Size of regression database |
Date: | 2014-11-14 10:29:54 |
Message-ID: | 20141114102954.GJ1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I was testing backwards compatibility of pg_dumpall just now, and was
> somewhat astonished to notice the size of the output for the regression
> database compared to what it was not too long ago:
>
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4509135 Nov 13 16:19 dumpall.83
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4514441 Nov 13 16:24 dumpall.84
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4666917 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.90
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4681235 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.91
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5333587 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.92
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5409083 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.93
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5493686 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.94
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 27151777 Nov 13 16:21 dumpall.head
>
> A quick eyeball check says that that quintupling of the database size
> is all in BRIN index tests. Could we dial that back to something a
> bit saner please?
Oops. Sure, will see about this.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2014-11-14 11:02:28 | Re: using custom scan nodes to prototype parallel sequential scan |
Previous Message | furuyao | 2014-11-14 10:22:04 | PostgreSQL doesn't stop propley when --slot option is specified with pg_receivexlog. |