Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 11:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I have been looking at refining the sorting of objects in pg_dump to
make it take advantage of buffering and synchronised scanning, and
possibly make parallel restoration simpler and more efficient.
Synchronized scanning is explicitly disabled in pg_dump. That was a
last-minute change to answer Greg Stark's complaint about dumping a
clustered table:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00987.php
That hopefully won't be a permanent solution, because I think
synchronized scans are useful for pg_dump.
However, I'm not clear on how the pg_dump order would be able to better
take advantage of synchronized scans anyway. What did you have in mind?
I should have expressed it better. The idea is to have pg_dump emit the
objects in an order that allows the restore to take advantage of sync
scans. So sync scans being disabled in pg_dump would not at all matter.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
