> On 9 May 2024, at 21:34, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 09:03:56AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> +1. Could there be an argument in favor of a backpatch? This is a >> performance improvement, but one could also side that the addition of >> sync support in pg_dump[all] has made that a regression that we'd >> better fix because the flushes don't matter in this context. They >> also bring costs for no gain. > > I don't see a strong need to back-patch this, if for no other reason than > it seems to have gone unnoticed for 7 major versions. Plus, based on my > admittedly limited testing, this is unlikely to provide significant > improvements.
Agreed, this is a nice little improvement but it's unlikely to be enough of a speedup to warrant changing the backbranches. -- Daniel Gustafsson
