On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 03:30:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> BTW, does pg_upgrade run pg_restore in --single-transaction mode? > >> That would probably make synchronous_commit moot, at least for that > >> step. > > > It doesn't use pg_restore at all - it uses the dump from pg_dumpall, which > > you can't reload with pg_restore. > > Sorry, I should've said psql --single-transaction. Although that isn't > going to work either given the presence of \connect commands in the > script. I wonder whether pg_dumpall ought to have some sort of "one > transaction per database please" option.
pg_dumpall is already doing lots of gymnastics with SQL, and pg_upgrade splits the output file into db/user creation and object creation, so I am hesitant to add anything more in there. I was surprised by the scale of the performance improvement, but a simple table creation test confirmed that improvement, irregardless of pg_upgrade. Perhaps we should suggest synchronous_commit=off for pg_dumpall restores, particularly when using --schema-only. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
