Hi Tom,
Let me try to explain my concern.
Here two writes were attempted by pg_dump, one from offset 0 and size 2000. In second attempt at offset 79 n length 1888.
WRITE - 0, 2000
WRITE - 79, 1,888
If it is a regular file data written during first attempt will be overwritten by second attempt ( from file offset 79 will be overwritten by second write attempt ) and total dump size would be 2000 bytes
If pipe is used this won't happen, total dump size would be ( 2000 + 1888 ) = 3888
Dump data fed to pg_restore will be totally different for 'non-pipe' and 'pipe' based even though they are taken for same DB.
Also here how will pg_restore handle extra ( or unwanted) dump data collected in case of piped dump ?
I believe this extra ( or unwanted) dump data is causing below error.
pg_restore: processing data for table "tabel35"
pg_restore: [compress_io] could not uncompress data: invalid bit length repeat
pg_restore: [compress_io] could not uncompress data: invalid bit length repeat
Thanks
Girish
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
girish R G peetle <giri.anamika0@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I just tracked pg_dump writing output to a file. (using procmon)
> As indicated below data is not written in serial fashion.
> If we use name pipe would this behavior cause problem ?
It's less efficient with a named pipe, yes, because then pg_dump
can't do that. But this doesn't prove anything one way or another
concerning your original complaint.
regards, tom lane
