Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> writes: >> That latter occurred recently to me, a customer would like to dump large >> tables (approx. 12G in size) with pg_dump, but he was annoyed about the >> performance. Using COPY BINARY reduced the time (unsurprisingly) to a >> fraction (from 12 minutes to 3 minutes). > > Seems like the right response might be some micro-optimization effort on > byteaout.
Still, apart from lack of interest from developpers and/or resources, is there some reason we don't have a pg_dump --binary option? DBA would have to make sure his exports are usable, but when the routine pg_dump backup is mainly there to be able to restore on the same machine in case of unwanted event (DELETE bug, malicious TRUNCATE, you name it), having a faster dump/restore even if local only would be of interest. Regards, -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
