From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, Hugo <hugo(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Date: | 2012-05-25 17:41:19 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1y_juK5VW8tp0HB009H8oWXzXdCFf6tu2AK=QB6FLwvwQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> For dumping entire databases, It looks like the biggest problem is
>> going to be LockReassignCurrentOwner in the server. And that doesn't
>> seem to be easy to fix, as any change to it to improve pg_dump will
>> risk degrading normal use cases.
>
> I didn't try profiling the server side, but pg_dump doesn't use
> subtransactions so it's not clear to me why LockReassignCurrentOwner
> would get called at all ...
I thought that every select statement in a repeatable read transaction
ran in a separate "portal", and that a portal is a flavor of
subtransaction. Anyway, it does show up at the top of a profile of
the server, so it is getting called somehow.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-25 17:41:24 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-25 16:56:17 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-25 20:02:50 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-25 16:56:17 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |