Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-05-31T15:06:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Teach AbortOutOfAnyTransaction to clean up partially-started transactions.
- 2755abf386e6 9.2.0 cited
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be holding your breath > >>> anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point. > > > >> I agree we can't back-patch that change, but then I think we ought to > >> consider back-patching some variant of Tatsuo's patch. Maybe it's not > >> reasonable to thunk an arbitrary number of relation names in there on > >> one line, but how about 1000 relations per LOCK statement or so? I > >> guess we'd need to see how much that erodes the benefit, but we've > >> certainly done back-branch rearrangements in pg_dump in the past to > >> fix various kinds of issues, and this is pretty non-invasive. > > > > I am not convinced either that this patch will still be useful after > > Jeff's fix goes in, ... > > But people on older branches are not going to GET Jeff's fix. FYI, if it got into Postgres 9.2, everyone upgrading to Postgres 9.2 would benefit because pg_upgrade uses the new cluster's pg_dumpall. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +