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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
