Re: pg_dump & performance degradation

Is this the sort of problem that nice() might solve, or not?

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > >> I think Philip's idea of adding some delays into pg_dump is a reasonable
> > >> answer.  I'm just recommending a KISS approach to implementing the
> > >> delay, in the absence of evidence that a more complex mechanism will
> > >> actually buy anything...
> > >
> > >I am worried about feature creep here.
> >
> > I agree; it's definitely a non-critical feature. But then, it is only 80
> > lines of code in one place (including 28 non-code lines). I am not totally
> > happy with the results it produces, so I have no objection to removing it
> > all. I just need some more general feedback...
> >
> >
> > >I can accept it as a config.h flag,
> >
> > You mean stick it in a bunch of ifdefs? What is the gain there?
> >
> >
> > >but it seems
> > >publishing it as a pg_dump flag is just way too complicated for users.
> >
> > I've missed something, obviously. What is the problem here?
> 
> I am more concerned with giving people a pg_dump option of questionable
> value.  I don't have problems adding it to the C code because it may be
> of use to some people.
> 
> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026