On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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, ... But people on older branches are not going to GET Jeff's fix. > 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). That is not a borderline scenario, as others have also pointed out. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
