Andres Freund <> 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

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to