On 7 May 2016 at 16:21, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 7 May 2016 at 16:14, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > > > If we don't lock it then we will have a inconsistent dump that will > fail > > > > later, if dumped while an object is being dropped. > > > > Do we want an inconsistent dump? > > > > > > The dump won't be inconsistent, as Tom pointed out. The catalog tables > > > are read using a repeatable read transaction, which will be consistent. > > > > The scan is consistent, yes, but the results would not be. > > I'm not following- the results are entirely dependent on the scan, so if > the scan is consistent, how could the results not be? >
Objects would no longer exist because of concurrent DROPs. You agreed before, why did you change? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
