Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1z6Rg7Vkg0gPo=_BhyFnabY6FtrzV2Q4de610A39WkX0w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Thu, May  2, 2013 at 03:03:58PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Some suggestions, perhaps just based on my preference for verbosity:
>
>
>        <para>
>         Add cache of local locks (Jeff Janes)
>        </para>
>
>        <para>
>         This speeds lock release at statement completion in transactions
>         that hold many locks; it is particularly useful for pg_dump.
>        </para>
>
>
> I think this is equally important for restoration of dumps, if the restoration
> is run all in one transaction.  (Making the dump and restoring it have similar
> locking and unlocking patterns)

Do you have proposed wording?  I can't say just dump/restore as it only
helps with _logical_ dump and _logical_ restore, and we don't have a
clear word for logical restore, as it could be pg_restore or piped into
psql.  We could do:

        that hold many locks; it is particularly useful for pg_dump and restore.

but "restore" seems very vague.


Yeah, I wasn't sure about how to work that either.

"...and the restore of such dumps."?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: Remaining beta blockers
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report