On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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. FYI, if it got into Postgres 9.2, everyone upgrading to Postgres 9.2 would benefit because pg_upgrade uses the new cluster's pg_dumpall. -- 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
