From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: depesz@depesz.com, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
        Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
        pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Can we get rid of repeated queries from pg_dump?
In-reply-to: <202108291313.oufovwqmwm67@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202108291313.oufovwqmwm67@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Sun, 29 Aug 2021 09:13:15 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1124940.1630245118.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 09:51:58 -0400
Message-ID: <1124941.1630245118@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1124941.1630245118%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Another pointlessly repetitive query is in getTriggers, which we run
> once per table to be dumped containing triggers.  We could reduce that
> by running it in bulk for many relations at a time.  I suppose it's
> normally not hurtful, but as we grow the number of partitions we allow
> it's going to become a problem.

Perhaps.  In the regression database, only ~10% of the tables have
triggers, so it's likely not going to yield any measurable gain there.
But databases that make heavier use of foreign keys might see a win.

Another thing I've wondered about before is whether it could make sense
to read pg_attribute once rather than once per table.  There might be
a fair amount of wasted work if the dump is selective, and in big DBs
the sheer size of that result could be a problem.  But those reads are
definitely way up there on the number-of-queries scale.

			regards, tom lane