From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump: Remove "blob" terminology |
Date: | 2022-12-05 15:08:57 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobsWzd3h24E3AciWodFC21FF1YCJB5HR=02aBNW_SUqpw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:07 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> > Well, what this would lose is the ability to selectively restore
> > individual large objects using "pg_restore -L". I'm not sure who
> > out there might be depending on that, but if we assume that's the
> > empty set I fear we'll find out it's not. So a workaround switch
> > seemed possibly worth the trouble. I don't have a position yet
> > on which way ought to be the default.
>
> OK, fair point. I suspect making the batched mode the default would gain
> more friends than enemies.
A lot of people probably don't know that selective restore even exists
but it is an AWESOME feature and I'd hate to see us break it, or even
just degrade it.
I wonder if we can't find a better solution than bunching TOC entries
together. Perhaps we don't need every TOC entry in memory
simultaneously, for instance, especially things like LOBs that don't
have dependencies.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-12-05 15:31:36 | Re: slab allocator performance issues |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-12-05 14:59:45 | Re: pg_basebackup: add test about zstd compress option |