* Pavan Deolasee (pavan.deola...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Grittner > > That makes sense to me. The reason I didn't make that change when I > > added the serializable special case to pg_dump was that it seemed > > like a separate question; I didn't want to complicate an already big > > patch with unnecessary changes to non-serializable transactions. > > > > If we agree, should we change that now ?
This is on the next commitfest, so I figure it deserves some comment.
For my part- I tend to agree that we should have it always use a read
only transaction. Perhaps we should update the pg_dump documentation to
mention this as well though? Pavan, do you want to put together an
actual patch?
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
