On Tuesday 17 April 2007 20:54, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm with Joshua on this one. Statement_timeout is often used as a means > > for protection from long running statements due to server load and > > locking and all of the above commands can certainly fall into that area. > > If people feel strongly that the command line programs need a way to > > circumvent it, add a --ignore-statement-timeout option or similar > > mechanism. > > The worst-case scenario here is that your server fails and you discover > that all your backups are corrupt because you didn't notice pg_dump was > failing due to statement_timeout. (Maybe it just recently started to > fail because your biggest table grew past the point at which the COPY > command exceeded statement_timeout.) >
I don't think I recall anyone ever complaining about this, and this scenario has been plausible for *years*... > I'm not excited about the other ones but I can see the argument for > making pg_dump force the timeout to 0. > Allowing pg_dump to run un-checked could also lead to problems such as exceeding maintenence windows causing performance issues, or causing trouble due to lock contention with ongoing pg_dumps. I'll grant that the downsides aren't as extreme, but the current functionality provides simple work arounds (setting up specific dump users for example). If we force pg_dump to 0 timeout, what means will be provided for the DBA who doesn't want to let pg_dump run unchecked? -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq