Re: pg_dump issues
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump issues |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16626.1317657734@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump issues (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun oct 03 01:47:18 -0300 2011: >> (Without cassert, it looks like LockReassignCurrentOwner is the next >> biggest time sink; I'm wondering if there's some sort of O(N^2) behavior >> in there.) > That seems fishy. Even if there weren't quadratic behavior, should this > be called at all? AFAIK it should only be used on cases where there are > subtransactions at work, and I don't think pg_dump uses them. I wondered that too, but the calls are legit --- they're coming from PortalDrop. It appears that most of the calls don't actually have anything to do, but they're iterating through a rather large local lock table to find that out. We probably ought to think of a way to avoid that. The trick is to not make performance worse for typical small transactions that aren't holding many locks (which I think was the design center for this to begin with). regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: