Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers(at)andrewrepp(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Date: 2023-03-17 17:44:12
Message-ID: 134704.1679075052@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 08:43:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the odds of that yielding a usable dump are nil, so I don't
>> see why we should bother.

> No objection from me.

OK, pushed with the discussed changes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2023-03-17 17:55:23 Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2023-03-17 16:56:58 Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump