On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 03:06:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Agreed, but as I said upthread, fixing that looks like it will be
> rather invasive. Meanwhile, I went ahead and pushed the two
> simple improvements discussed so far.
Great. Thank you very much.
Best regards,
depesz
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> My point in here is that potential optimizations regarding queries for
> pg_proc might speed up dumps for more people - as they might use things
> like postgis, but never realized that it can be much faster.
Agreed, but as I said upthread, fixing that looks
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:11:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ redirecting to -hackers ]
>
> I wrote:
> > I experimented with the attached, very quick-n-dirty patch to collect
> > format_type results during the initial scan of pg_type, instead. On the
> > regression database in HEAD, it reduces
[ redirecting to -hackers ]
I wrote:
> I experimented with the attached, very quick-n-dirty patch to collect
> format_type results during the initial scan of pg_type, instead. On the
> regression database in HEAD, it reduces the number of queries pg_dump
> issues from 3260 to 2905; but I'm
