| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-03 02:33:58 |
| Message-ID: | 11743.1291343638@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Umm, nobody has attributed ridiculousness to anyone. Please don't put
> words in my mouth. But I think this is a perfectly reasonable discussion
> to have. Nobody gets to come along and get the features they want
> without some sort of consensus, not me, not you, not Joachim, not Tom.
In particular, this issue *has* been discussed before, and there was a
consensus that preserving dump consistency was a requirement. I don't
think that Joachim gets to bypass that decision just by submitting a
patch that ignores it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-03 02:41:53 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-12-03 02:24:47 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |