Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote:
>> One place I'm particularly interested in using such a feature is in
>> pg_dump. Without it we have the choice of using a SERIALIZABLE
>> transaction, which might fail or cause failures (which doesn't seem
>> good for a backup program) or using REPEATABLE READ (to get current
>> snapshot isolation behavior), which might capture a view of the data
>> which contains serialization anomalies.
> I'm puzzled how pg_dump could possibly have serialization anomalies.
At the moment, it can't. If this patch means that it can, that's going
to be a mighty good reason not to apply the patch.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
