On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 03:30:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> BTW, does pg_upgrade run pg_restore in --single-transaction mode? >> >> That would probably make synchronous_commit moot, at least for that >> >> step. >> >> > It doesn't use pg_restore at all - it uses the dump from pg_dumpall, which >> > you can't reload with pg_restore. >> >> Sorry, I should've said psql --single-transaction. Although that isn't >> going to work either given the presence of \connect commands in the >> script. I wonder whether pg_dumpall ought to have some sort of "one >> transaction per database please" option. > > pg_dumpall is already doing lots of gymnastics with SQL, and pg_upgrade > splits the output file into db/user creation and object creation, so I > am hesitant to add anything more in there. > > I was surprised by the scale of the performance improvement, but a > simple table creation test confirmed that improvement, irregardless of > pg_upgrade. Perhaps we should suggest synchronous_commit=off for > pg_dumpall restores, particularly when using --schema-only.
Or have options for pg_dump and pg_restore to insert "set synchronous_commit=off" into the SQL stream? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
