Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZR8YvmkxwB81CJv2jBvmVtkKQ8+7_EWCh4SLh8xjSxBBA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> Folks run clusters with ~1000 databases; we previously accepted at least one
> complex performance improvement[1] based on that use case.  On the faster of
> the two machines I tested, the present thread's commits slowed "pg_dumpall
> --schema-only --binary-upgrade" by 1-2s per database.  That doubles pg_dump
> runtime against the installcheck regression database.  A run against a cluster
> of one hundred empty databases slowed fifteen-fold, from 8.6s to 131s.
> "pg_upgrade -j50" probably will keep things tolerable for the 1000-database
> case, but the performance regression remains jarring.  I think we should not
> release 9.6 with pg_dump performance as it stands today.

As someone that is responsible for many such clusters, I strongly agree.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Why doesn't src/backend/port/win32/socket.c implement bind()?