Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:20:53AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > Is it that statement_timeout is less likely to lead to a restore failure?
>
> That seems right -- default_read_only WILL fail the
> restore while stmt_timeout CAN.
>
> Or rather:
>
> One of the *legitimate* settings of read_only WILL fail it.
>
> But only *insane* settings of _timeout WILL, too (like,
> extremely short ones). Saner settings CAN still.
>
> Yes, I do agree that it seems useful to temporarily apply
> a sane stmt_timeout as well.
>
> But perhaps the idea was to think of the minimal impact
> patch solving the immediate problem at hand (my use case) ?

Well, then we are actually using two different reasons for patching
pg_dumpall and not pg_dump. Your reason is based on the probability of
failure, while Tom/Kevin's reason is that default_transaction_read_only
might be used to block changes to a specific database, and they want a
pg_dump restore prevented, but a pg_dumpall restore to succeed.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +