Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I don't find that a convincing comparison. Normally don't need to shutdown > the > server between two pg_dump commands. Which very well might be scripted.
> Especially as for now, without a background writer/checkpointer writing stuff > beforehand, the shutdown checkpoint won't be fast. IO isn't unlikely if youre > doing a pg_dump because of hint bits... I still think this is a straw-man argument. There is no expectation that a standalone PG implementation would provide performance for a series of standalone sessions that is equivalent to what you'd get from a persistent server. If that scenario is what's important to you, you'd use a persistent server. The case where this sort of thing would be interesting is where minimizing administration complexity (by not having a server) is more important than performance. People currently use, eg, SQLite for that type of application, and it's not because of performance. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers