From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Van Dyk <joe(at)tanga(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Performance issue in pg_dump's dependency loop searching |
Date: | 2014-07-29 18:28:02 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpa1fjDiJd323Xq-HFOo3VqSyGG+=pY7Bp_H=kZToSBo8w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 25 July 2014 20:47, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Another idea would be to
>
>> ...persist the optimal dump order in the database.
>
>> That way we can maintain the correct dump order each time we do DDL,
>> which is only a small incremental cost, no matter how many objects we
>> have.
>
> I don't see any obvious way to make it incremental; so I doubt that
> it would be a small extra cost. In any case I disagree that making DDL
> slower to make pg_dump faster is a good tradeoff. Many people seldom
> or never use pg_dump.
>
> regards, tom lane
Not to mention slowing down temp tables
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-07-29 19:01:30 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-29 18:06:30 | Re: Performance issue in pg_dump's dependency loop searching |