Re: pg_dump & performance degradation
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200008010341.XAA21148@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump & performance degradation
Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> >> I think Philip's idea of adding some delays into pg_dump is a reasonable > >> answer. I'm just recommending a KISS approach to implementing the > >> delay, in the absence of evidence that a more complex mechanism will > >> actually buy anything... > > > >I am worried about feature creep here. > > I agree; it's definitely a non-critical feature. But then, it is only 80 > lines of code in one place (including 28 non-code lines). I am not totally > happy with the results it produces, so I have no objection to removing it > all. I just need some more general feedback... > > > >I can accept it as a config.h flag, > > You mean stick it in a bunch of ifdefs? What is the gain there? > > > >but it seems > >publishing it as a pg_dump flag is just way too complicated for users. > > I've missed something, obviously. What is the problem here? I am more concerned with giving people a pg_dump option of questionable value. I don't have problems adding it to the C code because it may be of use to some people. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: