Re: [PATCH] pg_dump: lock tables in batches - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: [PATCH] pg_dump: lock tables in batches
Date
Msg-id CAAWbhmj==58mmuU+H6jzCS3jcfSk_QGKAJZadPi5uPEi-gLv1w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] pg_dump: lock tables in batches  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 2:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Is "-s" mode actually a relevant criterion here?  With per-table COPY
> commands added into the mix you could not possibly get better than 2x
> improvement, and likely a good deal less.

Don't we hit this code path in pg_upgrade? You won't see huge
round-trip times, of course, but you also won't see COPY.

Absolute performance aside, isn't there another concern that, the
longer it takes for us to lock the tables, the bigger the window there
is for someone to interfere with them between our catalog query and
the lock itself?

--Jacob



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error-safe user functions
Next
From: Andrey Chudnovsky
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER