Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 20:39:06 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: M Sarwar <sarwarmd02@outlook.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Holger Jakobs <holger@jakobs.com>,
	"pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>,
 "rajeshkumar.dba09@gmail.com" <rajeshkumar.dba09@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pg_dump
Message-ID: <202312071939.dwcjj5lwivaa@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <DM4PR19MB59782A7B2AB3B232806064A9D38BA@DM4PR19MB5978.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202312071939.dwcjj5lwivaa%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-Dec-07, M Sarwar wrote:

> I agree with Tom. This is making the difference. I ran into this scenario several times in the past.
> But whole database is becoming slow when the dump is happening .

For large databases with very high rate of updates, a running pg_dump
can prevent vacuum from removing old versions of rows.  This can make
the operations slower because of accumulation of bloat.

For such situations, pg_dump is not really recommended.  It's better to
use a physical backup (say, pgbarman), or if you really need a pg_dump
output file for some reason, create a replica (with _no_
hot_standby_feedback) and run pg_dump there.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I'm always right, but sometimes I'm more right than other times."
                                                  (Linus Torvalds)
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org/