On 2025-Mar-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > I used the same parallelism in pg_restore and pg_dump too. And your > numbers seem to be similar to mine; slightly less than 20% slowdown. > But is that slowdown acceptable? From the earlier discussions, it > seems the answer is No. Haven't heard otherwise.
I don't think we need to see slowdown this in relative terms, the way we would discuss a change in the executor. This is not a change that would affect user-level stuff in any way. We need to see it in absolute terms: in machines similar to mine, the pg_upgrade test would go from taking 23s to taking 27s. This is 4s slower, but this isn't an increase in total test runtime, because decently run test suites run multiple tests in parallel. This is the same that Peter said in [1]. The total test runtime change might not be *that* large. I'll take a few numbers and report back. [1] https://postgr.es/m/b0635739-39f0-4a29-9127-f62aa570a...@eisentraut.org -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "I love the Postgres community. It's all about doing things _properly_. :-)" (David Garamond)
