Jan Wieck wrote: > On 6/6/2006 12:04 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: > >>Either way, it would substantially complicate the subscription process :-(. >
> > Since we are now substantially speeding up the copy_set, I don't see how > Slony is more of a problem than pg_dump. While Slony may be as fast as pg_dump now, it could be faster in some situations: when copying binary data, COPY is substantially slower than COPY BINARY. An option to advise slon to use COPY BINARY would be a first step, even better if this could be defined per table (and even better, if pgsql had a COPY option that's equally efficient for text and binary data). Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
