Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was testing backwards compatibility of pg_dumpall just now, and was
> > somewhat astonished to notice the size of the output for the regression
> > database compared to what it was not too long ago:
> >
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4509135 Nov 13 16:19 dumpall.83
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4514441 Nov 13 16:24 dumpall.84
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4666917 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.90
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 4681235 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.91
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5333587 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.92
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5409083 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.93
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 5493686 Nov 13 16:15 dumpall.94
> > -rw-rw-r--. 1 tgl tgl 27151777 Nov 13 16:21 dumpall.head
> >
> > A quick eyeball check says that that quintupling of the database size
> > is all in BRIN index tests. Could we dial that back to something a
> > bit saner please?
>
> Oops. Sure, will see about this.
Done:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=86cf9a565069755189e08290343d2d62afdd1f52
Now a pg_dumpall for me is 5510969 bytes which seems reasonable.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
