Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 14:34:25 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: add --no-sync to pg_upgrade's calls to pg_dump and pg_dumpall
Message-ID: <20240509193425.GA3219615@nathanxps13>
References: <20240503171348.GA1731524@nathanxps13>
 <677ed9ca-8653-4c27-80ca-0ea763f0f21f@eisentraut.org>
 <20240508183850.GA2824188@nathanxps13>
 <818511.1715194198@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ZjwS7KMcRq7YGvt5@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZjwS7KMcRq7YGvt5@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240509193425.GA3219615%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

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