daveg wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Alex Hunsaker wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?: > > > > > > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like: > > > > > > > > > > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" > > > > ? > > > > > > > > We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS. > > > > > > > > > > Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout > > > by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump? > > > > > > Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line > > > option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore. > > > > I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout > > flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during > > pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it. > > I have a patch in the queue to use set statement timeout while pg_dump is > taking locks to avoid pg_dump hanging for other long running transactions > that may have done ddl. Do I need to repost for discussion now?
I see it now, but I forgot how it would interact with this patch. We would have to prevent --use-statement-timeout when lock timeout was being used, but my point is that I see no value in having --use-statement-timeout. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
