Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B677411DF225; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:07:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Sa6xs-00005a-Nf; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:07:05 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Sa6xe-0005UE-VR; Thu, 31 May 2012 11:06:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:06:50 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Robert Haas Cc: Tom Lane , Claudio Freire , Robert Klemme , Tatsuo Ishii , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas Message-ID: <20120531150650.GG26894@momjian.us> References: <20120529.185149.1127748531209576379.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp> <20120531.174526.2183902405630094684.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp> <20120531.230757.2014494683420217075.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp> <9787.1338474676@sss.pgh.pa.us> <10443.1338475851@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201205/193 X-Sequence-Number: 47017 On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: > >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I'm not; Jeff Janes is.  But you shouldn't be holding your breath > >>> anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point. > > > >> I agree we can't back-patch that change, but then I think we ought to > >> consider back-patching some variant of Tatsuo's patch.  Maybe it's not > >> reasonable to thunk an arbitrary number of relation names in there on > >> one line, but how about 1000 relations per LOCK statement or so?  I > >> guess we'd need to see how much that erodes the benefit, but we've > >> certainly done back-branch rearrangements in pg_dump in the past to > >> fix various kinds of issues, and this is pretty non-invasive. > > > > I am not convinced either that this patch will still be useful after > > Jeff's fix goes in, ... > > But people on older branches are not going to GET Jeff's fix. FYI, if it got into Postgres 9.2, everyone upgrading to Postgres 9.2 would benefit because pg_upgrade uses the new cluster's pg_dumpall. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +