From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
Date: | 2008-03-11 20:32:45 |
Message-ID: | 20080311133245.2660c557@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > > Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump
> > > dump --- are we going to add "SET statement_timeout=0"
> > > to the pg_dump file?
> >
> > I hope not. That should be the user's choice.
>
> Would anyone want to limit the load time for pg_dump? I can hardly
> see why.
I have to agree with Bruce here. You restore a backup because your
hosed something or you are building a dev environment. These are both
boolean results that should end in TRUE :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFH1uxyATb/zqfZUUQRAvyWAKCATrKgRQygjveXSrY0KIptvKYZJQCgg87z
XrXncZ8d2Qyf61Wtc+OtHXg=
=rBaK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-11 20:36:21 | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-11 20:17:53 | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |