Tom Lane <> schrieb:

>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
>> 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,
>use a persistent server.  The case where this sort of thing would be
>interesting is where minimizing administration complexity (by not
>a server) is more important than performance.  People currently use,
>SQLite for that type of application, and it's not because of
I am not saying its bad that it is slower, that's absolutely OK. Just that it 
will take a variable amount of time till you can run pgdump again and its not 
easily detectable without looping and trying again.


Please excuse the brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

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

Reply via email to