| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 14:49:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20140304144949.GE12995@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Atri Sharma (atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> If its not the case, the user should be more careful about when he is
> scheduling backups to so that they dont conflict with DDL changes.
I'm not following this as closely as I'd like to, but I wanted to voice
my opinion that this is just not acceptable as a general answer. There
are a good many applications out there which do DDL as part of ongoing
activity (part of ETL, or something else) and still need to be able to
get a pg_dump done. It's not a design I'd recommend, but I don't think
we get to just write it off either.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-03-04 14:50:05 | Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-04 14:48:33 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |