| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump --snapshot |
| Date: | 2013-05-07 17:12:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20130507171255.GB14818@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-05-07 16:50:52 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> What's the worst case for using an old snapshot? If I try to access a
> table that doesn't exist any longer I'll get an error. That doesn't
> really seem that bad for the use case I described. It's worse for the
> full table dump but for an explicit list of tables, eh. Seems ok to
> me.
Its worth than that, you can get a dump that dumps successfully but
doesn't restore:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20130507141526.GA6117%40awork2.anarazel.de
But that's not really related to snapshots. And not related to the
patch. Imo the whole focus on the time between snapshot taking and
taking the locks is a misguided and not really the problem.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-05-07 17:20:48 | Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-07 17:05:20 | Re: pg_dump --snapshot |