Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys
Date: 2008-06-09 00:12:15
Message-ID: 24982.1212970335@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> and i'm sure no one is against that idea, but you're never going to be able to
> match the performance of just avoiding the check.

We'll never be able to match the performance of not having transactions,
either, but the community has never for a moment considered having a
"no transactions" mode.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-06-09 00:15:15 Re: handling TOAST tables in autovacuum
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-06-09 00:10:16 Re: libpq support for arrays and composites