* Tom Lane ([email protected]) wrote: > Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> writes: > > Shall I commit to master and all supported branches? > > I'm not excited by this patch. It dodges the O(N^2) lock behavior for > the initial phase of acquiring the locks, but it does nothing for the > lock-related slowdown occurring in all pg_dump's subsequent commands. > I think we really need to get in the server-side fix that Jeff Janes is > working on, and then re-measure to see if something like this is still > worth the trouble. I am also a tad concerned about whether we might not > have problems with parsing memory usage, or some such, with thousands of > tables being listed in a single command.
I can't imagine a case where it's actually better to incur the latency
penalty (which is apparently on the order of *minutes* of additional
time here..) than to worry about the potential memory usage of having to
parse such a command.
If that's really a concern, where is that threshold, and could we simply
cap pg_dump's operations based on it? Is 1000 alright? Doing a 'lock'
w/ 1000 tables at a time is still going to be hugely better than doing
them individually and the amount of gain between every-1000 and
all-at-once is likely to be pretty minimal anyway...
The current situation where the client-to-server latency accounts for
multiple minutes of time is just ridiculous, however, so I feel we need
some form of this patch, even if the server side is magically made much
faster. The constant back-and-forth isn't cheap.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
