On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * 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? >
I'd posted actual patch on this thread, but probably linked wrong message-id in the commitfest page. Will check and correct. Regarding pg_dump's documentation, I don't have strong views on that. Whether pg_dump runs as a read-only transaction or not is entirely internal to its implementation, but then if we make this change, it might be worth telling users that they can trust that pg_dump will not make any changes to their database and hence a safe operation to carry out. Thanks, Pavan Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
