On 30/07/2018 13:51, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Any thoughts on how to proceed here? It seems there is more work to do
> to cover all the issues with dumping and restoring tables with many
> columns. Since the original report was in the context of pg_upgrade, we
> should surely address at least the pg_restore slowness.
>
> I'll working on solving the problem using a hash table at the lowest
> level (making column names unique), for a future commit fest. That
> should drop it from N^3 to N^2, which since N can't go above 1600 should
> be good enough.
>
> So we can set this to rejected, as that will be an entirely different
> approach.
>
> Your caching patch might be worthwhile on its own, though.
I'm going to set this thread as returned with feedback until we have a
more complete solution.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services