On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:12:44AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:02:28PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > (3) pg_dumpall became much slower around the time of these commits. On
> > > one
> > > machine (POWER7 3.55 GHz), a pg_dumpall just after initdb slowed from
> > > 0.25s at
> > > commit 6c268df^ to 4.0s at commit 7a54270. On a slower machine (Opteron
> > > 1210), pg_dumpall now takes 19s against such a fresh cluster.
> > [This is a generic notification.]
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Stephen,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item. If that responsibility lies elsewhere, please let us know whose
> > responsibility it is to fix this. Since new open items may be discovered at
> > any time and I want to plan to have them all fixed well in advance of the
> > ship
> > date, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Please
> > present, within 72 hours, a plan to fix the defect within seven days of this
> > message. Thanks.
> I'm at PGConf.US but will be reviewing this in detail after. The schema
> qualification will be easily taken care of, the additional time for
> pg_dump is due to the queries looking at the catalog objects and is
> therefore relatively fixed and is primairly only a large amount of the
> time when dumping databases which are mostly empty.
Do you think it would be okay to release 9.6 with pg_dump still adding that
amount of time per database?
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: