On 12/02/2010 05:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 12/02/2010 05:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In the past, proposals for this have always been rejected on the grounds
that it's impossible to assure a consistent dump if different
connections are used to read different tables. I fail to understand
why that consideration can be allowed to go by the wayside now.
Well, snapshot cloning should allow that objection to be overcome, no?
Possibly, but we need to see that patch first not second.
Yes, I agree with that.
(I'm not actually convinced that snapshot cloning is the only problem
here; locking could be an issue too, if there are concurrent processes
trying to take locks that will conflict with pg_dump's. But the
snapshot issue is definitely a showstopper.)
Why is that more an issue with parallel pg_dump?
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
