Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Le lundi 29 septembre 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
* Extend the archive format to provide some indication that "restoring
this object requires exclusive access to these dependencies".
* Hardwire knowledge into pg_restore that certain types of objects
require exclusive access to their dependencies.
Well, it seems to me that currently the FK needs in term of existing indexes
and locks, and some other object lock needs, are all hardwired. Is it even
safe to consider having the locks needed for certain commands not be
hardwired?
Provided I'm not all wrong here, I don't see how having something more
flexible at restore time than at build time is a win. The drawback is that
whenever you change a lock need in commands, you have to remember teaching
pg_restore about it too.
So my vote here is in favor of hardwired knowledge of pg_restore, matching
target server code assumptions and needs.
Well, I've had to use some knowledge of various item types already, and
I have been trying not to disturb pg_dump also, so I'm inclined to build
this knowledge into pg_restore.
ISTM that "things that will have lock conflicts" are different and more
target version dependent than "things that logically depend on other
things", so we can still rely on pg_dump to some extent to provide the
latter while building the former at restore time.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
