Re: pg_restore oddity?

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Mario Weilguni wrote:
>> I cannot use "-1" for performance, because some gist stuff has changed
>> and the restore fails. But there seems to be no option for pg_restore to
>> use transactions for data restore, so it's very very slow (one million
>> records, each obviously in it's own transaction - because a separate
>> session "select count(1) from logins" shows a growing number).
>
> By default, pg_dump/pg_restore uses a COPY command for each table, and
> each COPY executes as a single transaction, so you shouldn't see the row
> count growing like that. Is the dump file in --inserts format?
>
>> It would be nice to use transactions for the data stuff itself, but not
>> for schema changes or functions. I know I can use separate pg_restore
>> runs for schema and data, but it's complicated IMHO.
>
> pg_restore -s foo
> pg_restore -a -1 foo
>
> doesn't seem too complicated to me. Am I missing something?

Doesn't pg_restore create the indices *after* loading the data if you let it
restore the schema *and* the data in one step? The above workaround would
disable that optimization, thereby making the data-restore phase much more costly.

Now that I think about it, I remember that I've often whished that we not only
had --schema-only and --data-only, but also --schema-unconstrained-only and
--constraints-only.

regards, Florian Pflug