Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 11:18 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> I have been looking at refining the sorting of objects in pg_dump to
>> make it take advantage of buffering and synchronised scanning, and
>> possibly make parallel restoration simpler and more efficient.
>>
>>
>
> Synchronized scanning is explicitly disabled in pg_dump. That was a
> last-minute change to answer Greg Stark's complaint about dumping a
> clustered table:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00987.php
>
> That hopefully won't be a permanent solution, because I think
> synchronized scans are useful for pg_dump.
>
> However, I'm not clear on how the pg_dump order would be able to better
> take advantage of synchronized scans anyway. What did you have in mind?
>
>
>
I should have expressed it better. The idea is to have pg_dump emit the
objects in an order that allows the restore to take advantage of sync
scans. So sync scans being disabled in pg_dump would not at all matter.
cheers
andrew
