On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:30:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > daveg wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Alex Hunsaker wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?: > > > > > > > > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like: > > > > > > > > > > > > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET > > > > > MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" ? > > > > > > > > > > We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout > > > > by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump? > > > > > > > > Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line > > > > option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore. > > > > > > I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout > > > flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during > > > pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it. > > > > I have a patch in the queue to use set statement timeout while pg_dump is > > taking locks to avoid pg_dump hanging for other long running transactions > > that may have done ddl. Do I need to repost for discussion now? > > I see it now, but I forgot how it would interact with this patch. We > would have to prevent --use-statement-timeout when lock timeout was > being used, but my point is that I see no value in having > --use-statement-timeout.
lock-timeout sets statement_timeout to a small value while locks are being taken on all the tables. Then it resets it to default. So it could reset it to whatever the new default is. Do I need to adjust my patch or something? -dg -- David Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
