Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb:
>Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I don't find that a convincing comparison. Normally don't need to
>shutdown the
>> server between two pg_dump commands. Which very well might be
>scripted.
>
>> Especially as for now, without a background writer/checkpointer
>writing stuff
>> beforehand, the shutdown checkpoint won't be fast. IO isn't unlikely
>if youre
>> doing a pg_dump because of hint bits...
>
>I still think this is a straw-man argument. There is no expectation
>that a standalone PG implementation would provide performance for a
>series of standalone sessions that is equivalent to what you'd get from
>a persistent server. If that scenario is what's important to you,
>you'd
>use a persistent server. The case where this sort of thing would be
>interesting is where minimizing administration complexity (by not
>having
>a server) is more important than performance. People currently use,
>eg,
>SQLite for that type of application, and it's not because of
>performance.
I am not saying its bad that it is slower, that's absolutely OK. Just that it will take a variable amount of time till
youcan run pgdump again and its not easily detectable without looping and trying again.
Andres
---
Please excuse the brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
