| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ottavio Campana <ottavio(at)campana(dot)vi(dot)it> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: queston about locking |
| Date: | 2007-09-21 10:16:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20070921101646.GA17833@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:53:54AM +0200, Ottavio Campana wrote:
> the point is that for each table I have a copy I previously made and I
> want to create an incremental backup. My problem is that I don't want
> the original table to change, so I lock it.
>
> I admin that exclusive lock is probably too much.
Why not just use SERLIALISED transaction mode, then your program won't
see any changes, while other programs can still use it normally. That's
how pg_dump generates consistant backups.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2007-09-21 10:18:24 | Re: "not in" clause too slow? |
| Previous Message | Ottavio Campana | 2007-09-21 10:09:50 | "not in" clause too slow? |