Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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.
Unless you
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Unless you do something to explic
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.
Synchro
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 explic
