Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be holding your breath >> anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point. > I agree we can't back-patch that change, but then I think we ought to > consider back-patching some variant of Tatsuo's patch. Maybe it's not > reasonable to thunk an arbitrary number of relation names in there on > one line, but how about 1000 relations per LOCK statement or so? I > guess we'd need to see how much that erodes the benefit, but we've > certainly done back-branch rearrangements in pg_dump in the past to > fix various kinds of issues, and this is pretty non-invasive. I am not convinced either that this patch will still be useful after Jeff's fix goes in, or that it provides any meaningful savings when you consider a complete pg_dump run. Yeah, it will make the lock acquisition phase faster, but that's not a big part of the runtime except in very limited scenarios (--schema-only, perhaps). The performance patches we applied to pg_dump over the past couple weeks were meant to relieve pain in situations where the big server-side lossage wasn't the dominant factor in runtime (ie, partial dumps). But this one is targeting exactly that area, which is why it looks like a band-aid and not a fix to me. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
