| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump broken for non-super user |
| Date: | 2016-05-07 14:21:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20160507142121.GM10850@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 7 May 2016 at 16:14, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > > If we don't lock it then we will have a inconsistent dump that will fail
> > > later, if dumped while an object is being dropped.
> > > Do we want an inconsistent dump?
> >
> > The dump won't be inconsistent, as Tom pointed out. The catalog tables
> > are read using a repeatable read transaction, which will be consistent.
>
> The scan is consistent, yes, but the results would not be.
I'm not following- the results are entirely dependent on the scan, so if
the scan is consistent, how could the results not be?
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-05-07 14:25:30 | Re: pg_dump broken for non-super user |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-05-07 14:19:59 | Re: pg_dump broken for non-super user |