From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report |
Date: | 2013-05-05 21:16:59 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1z6Rg7Vkg0gPo=_BhyFnabY6FtrzV2Q4de610A39WkX0w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 03:03:58PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Some suggestions, perhaps just based on my preference for verbosity:
> >
> >
> > <para>
> > Add cache of local locks (Jeff Janes)
> > </para>
> >
> > <para>
> > This speeds lock release at statement completion in transactions
> > that hold many locks; it is particularly useful for pg_dump.
> > </para>
> >
> >
> > I think this is equally important for restoration of dumps, if the
> restoration
> > is run all in one transaction. (Making the dump and restoring it have
> similar
> > locking and unlocking patterns)
>
> Do you have proposed wording? I can't say just dump/restore as it only
> helps with _logical_ dump and _logical_ restore, and we don't have a
> clear word for logical restore, as it could be pg_restore or piped into
> psql. We could do:
>
> that hold many locks; it is particularly useful for pg_dump and
> restore.
>
> but "restore" seems very vague.
>
Yeah, I wasn't sure about how to work that either.
"...and the restore of such dumps."?
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-05-05 22:59:28 | Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-05-05 20:41:34 | Re: Remaining beta blockers |