agora inbox for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Subject: Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:08:00 -0400
Message-ID: <200806071308.00845.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1212670595.19964.55.camel@ebony.site>
References: <1212647003.19964.19.camel@ebony.site>
<4847D4A7.70309@dunslane.net>
<1212670595.19964.55.camel@ebony.site>
On Thursday 05 June 2008 08:56:35 Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 07:57 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > pg_dump restore times can be high when they include many ALTER TABLE
> > > ADD FORIEGN KEY statements, since each statement checks the data to see
> > > if it is fully valid in all cases.
> > >
> > > I've been asked "why we run that at all?", since if we dumped the
> > > tables together, we already know they match.
> > >
> > > If we had a way of pg_dump passing on the information that the test
> > > already passes, we would be able to skip the checks.
> > >
> > > Proposal:
> > >
> > > * Introduce a new mode for ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY [WITHOUT CHECK];
> > > When we run WITHOUT CHECK, iff both the source and target table are
> > > newly created in this transaction, then we skip the check. If the check
> > > is skipped we mark the constraint as being unchecked, so we can tell
> > > later if this has been used.
> > >
> > > * Have pg_dump write the new syntax into its dumps, when both the
> > > source and target table are dumped in same run
> > >
> > > I'm guessing that the WITHOUT CHECK option would not be acceptable as
> > > an unprotected trap for our lazy and wicked users. :-)
> >
> > This whole proposal would be a major footgun which would definitely be
> > abused, IMNSHO.
>
> OK, understood. Two negatives is enough to sink it.
>
Heh, I would have argued that the idea should go the other way and just make
this part of the normal syntax. Oracle DBA's have been doing this for years
(MS SQL supports it too actually) and it really helps working around having
to hold locks on large relations for lengthy periods of times. Heck, I'd like
to see a no check option for all constraints really.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
view thread (40+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <200806071308.00845.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Permalink: ../../200806071308.00845.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/200806071308.00845.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
reply
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: xzilla@users.sourceforge.net, simon@2ndquadrant.com, andrew@dunslane.net
Subject: Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys
In-Reply-To: <200806071308.00845.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox