| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys |
| Date: | 2008-06-09 00:40:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200806082040.31398.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 08 June 2008 20:12:15 Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> > and i'm sure no one is against that idea, but you're never going to be
> > able to match the performance of just avoiding the check.
>
> We'll never be able to match the performance of not having transactions,
> either, but the community has never for a moment considered having a
> "no transactions" mode.
>
it's unclear what a "no transaction" mode would mean, but I'd be willing to
guess some people have consider aspects of it (we've just never had
agreement)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-09 01:12:05 | Automating our version-stamping a bit better |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-06-09 00:33:52 | Re: libpq support for arrays and composites |