| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question |
| Date: | 2016-01-02 03:28:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20160102032810.GA2956858@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I agree with Filip that this is a bug. pg_dump clearly doesn't work
> correctly with inheritance.
>
> If I run this command
>
> pg_dump -t tab1
>
> then I get a dump of "tab1". No data is included from tables that inherit
> tab1 because COPY refers only to the target table.
>
> Why should that action cause a lock to be taken on another table that
> inherits from tab1?
>
> It seems clear that the user is requesting an action ONLY on tab1, so we
> should use LOCK TABLE tab1 ONLY;
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-01-02 03:59:36 | Re: Patch: Revised documentation on base backups |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-02 03:10:24 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |