On 2013-05-06 14:35:14 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > Its rather useful if you e.g. want to instantiate a new replica without > > rebuilding pg_dump/pg_restore's capabilities wrt. ordering, parallelism, > > separating initial data load from index creation and all that. Which > > already has been incompletely reinvented by several solutions :(. > > Perhaps it's just a wording thing, but I wouldn't use the term "replica" > when referring to something built with pg_dump/restore- that should > really be reserved for a slave system created through replication.
Well, part of the usecase *is* using it for the cloning in a replication solution instead of open-coding it there. E.g. londiste and slony both have home-grown hacks to do this. > > So besides the above and real problems you point out this seems > > worthwile to me... > > It certainly sounds interesting and I like the idea of it, but perhaps > we need a different mechanism than just passing in a raw snapshot, to > address the concerns that Tom raised. If there is anything which isn't magnitudes more complex, I'd be interested. But given we couldn't even find a sensible solution for pg_dump internally I don't have all that high hopes... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers