From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: andrewbille@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables.
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 17:03:12 -0500
Message-ID: <aO7IoIEnQDbtFzrs@nathan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1000041.1760471415@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <19086-871ff11017d03dc5@postgresql.org>
<aO6mUj9H2WpEFylG@nathan>
<1000041.1760471415@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 03:50:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Even if it's been seen in the field, it hardly qualifies as a
> justification for complicating pg_dump's behavior. There's no reason
> to think that catalog corruption preferentially affects indexes, or
> does so in this particular way. Should we also not collect data on
> functions, types, etc etc?
FWIW the getIndexes() query does tend to be one of the slowest, even with
intact system indexes. I've no concrete proposals, but there might be some
room for improvement. I don't think we gain all that much by simply
avoiding the query in probably-somewhat-rare use-cases. IMHO it ought to
be reworked for efficiency.
--
nathan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrewbille@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19086: pg_dump --data-only selects and do not uses index definitions for the dumped tables.
In-Reply-To: <aO7IoIEnQDbtFzrs@nathan>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox