On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:20:53AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > Is it that statement_timeout is less likely to lead to a restore failure? > > That seems right -- default_read_only WILL fail the > restore while stmt_timeout CAN. > > Or rather: > > One of the *legitimate* settings of read_only WILL fail it. > > But only *insane* settings of _timeout WILL, too (like, > extremely short ones). Saner settings CAN still. > > Yes, I do agree that it seems useful to temporarily apply > a sane stmt_timeout as well. > > But perhaps the idea was to think of the minimal impact > patch solving the immediate problem at hand (my use case) ?
Well, then we are actually using two different reasons for patching pg_dumpall and not pg_dump. Your reason is based on the probability of failure, while Tom/Kevin's reason is that default_transaction_read_only might be used to block changes to a specific database, and they want a pg_dump restore prevented, but a pg_dumpall restore to succeed. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
