| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2008-06-25 02:41:07 |
| Message-ID: | 10382.1214361667@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
> Are we talking about the same patch?
Maybe not --- I thought you were talking about a backend-side behavioral
change.
> Because I don't know what you are
> refering to with "timer management code" and "scheduling the interrupt" in
> the context of pg_dump.
I'm not sure that I see a good argument for making pg_dump deliberately
fail, if that's what you're proposing. Maybe I'm just too old-school,
but there simply is not any other higher priority for a database than
safeguarding your data.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-25 03:03:16 | Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2008-06-25 00:31:11 | Re: MSVC 2003 compile error with pg8.3.3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-25 02:49:09 | Re: variadic function support |
| Previous Message | daveg | 2008-06-25 00:01:03 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout |