Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:20:43AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>>> Ok, I modified the part of pg_dump where tremendous number of LOCK >>>> TABLE are issued. I replace them with single LOCK TABLE with multiple >>>> tables. With 100k tables LOCK statements took 13 minutes in total, now >>>> it only takes 3 seconds. Comments? >>> Was this applied? >> No, we fixed the server side instead. > But only for 9.2, right? So people running back branches are still screwed. Yeah, but they're screwed anyway, because there are a bunch of O(N^2) behaviors involved here, not all of which are masked by what Tatsuo-san suggested. Six months or a year from now, we might have enough confidence in that batch of 9.2 fixes to back-port them en masse. Don't want to do it today though. 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
