Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > I was testing backwards compatibility of pg_dumpall just now, and was > > somewhat astonished to notice the size of the output for the regression > > database compared to what it was not too long ago: > > > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4509135 Nov 13 16:19 dumpall.83 > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4514441 Nov 13 16:24 dumpall.84 > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4666917 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.90 > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4681235 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.91 > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5333587 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.92 > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5409083 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.93 > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5493686 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.94 > > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 27151777 Nov 13 16:21 dumpall.head > > > > A quick eyeball check says that that quintupling of the database size > > is all in BRIN index tests. Could we dial that back to something a > > bit saner please? > > Oops. Sure, will see about this.
Done: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=86cf9a565069755189e08290343d2d62afdd1f52 Now a pg_dumpall for me is 5510969 bytes which seems reasonable. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
