On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:12:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > AFAIK, this should allow both to run in seperate transactions. > > ... and pretty much destroy any synchronization between the two scans, > which was sort of the point wasn't it?
Aren't there ways to sync them outside of a transaction? My theory is that you don't need to syncronize them at the tuple level, since whichever one gets ahead reading the HEAP will be pulling the data off the drive, while the one that's behind will just grab it out of the buffer (or at worst, the kernel's cache). So all you should need to do is start both scans at about (as in within a few seconds) the same time. Heck, if vacuum was made to put more verbose info in it's process status then it could be as simple as having pg_dump start a vacuum of a table in a seperate connection and just watching for the status to indicate it had started vacuuming the table. I *think* this shouldn't be too hard to test, which is good since it's all theory right now. :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
