On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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). FYI, that is the pg_upgrade use-case, and pg_dump/restore time is reportedly taking the majority of time in many cases. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
