On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 25 July 2014 20:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Another idea would be to
>
>> ...persist the optimal dump order in the database.
>
>> That way we can maintain the correct dump order each time we do DDL,
>> which is only a small
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 25 July 2014 20:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another idea would be to
> ...persist the optimal dump order in the database.
> That way we can maintain the correct dump order each time we do DDL,
> which is only a small incremental cost, no matter how many objects we
> have.
I
On 25 July 2014 20:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another idea would be to
...persist the optimal dump order in the database.
That way we can maintain the correct dump order each time we do DDL,
which is only a small incremental cost, no matter how many objects we
have.
--
Simon Riggs
I looked into the performance issue Joe Van Dyk reported in bug #11033.
It turns out this is basically a consequence of the "section boundary"
pseudo-objects I added in commit a1ef01fe163b304760088e3e30eb22036910a495.
(I'd worried about performance consequences at the time, but hadn't
seen any actu
