From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: add --no-sync to pg_upgrade's calls to pg_dump and pg_dumpall
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 14:34:25 -0500
Message-ID: <20240509193425.GA3219615@nathanxps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZjwS7KMcRq7YGvt5@paquier.xyz>
References: <20240503171348.GA1731524@nathanxps13>
<677ed9ca-8653-4c27-80ca-0ea763f0f21f@eisentraut.org>
<20240508183850.GA2824188@nathanxps13>
<818511.1715194198@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<ZjwS7KMcRq7YGvt5@paquier.xyz>
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 09:03:56AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +1. Could there be an argument in favor of a backpatch? This is a
> performance improvement, but one could also side that the addition of
> sync support in pg_dump[all] has made that a regression that we'd
> better fix because the flushes don't matter in this context. They
> also bring costs for no gain.
I don't see a strong need to back-patch this, if for no other reason than
it seems to have gone unnoticed for 7 major versions. Plus, based on my
admittedly limited testing, this is unlikely to provide significant
improvements.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
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: nathandbossart@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter@eisentraut.org
Subject: Re: add --no-sync to pg_upgrade's calls to pg_dump and pg_dumpall
In-Reply-To: <20240509193425.GA3219615@nathanxps13>
* 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