From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
Date: | 2010-12-06 21:15:41 |
Message-ID: | 2287.1291670141@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> IIRC, in old discussions of this problem we first considered allowing
>> clients to pull down an explicit representation of their snapshot (which
>> actually is an existing feature now, txid_current_snapshot()) and then
>> upload that again to become the active snapshot in another connection.
> Could a hot standby use such a snapshot representation? I.e. same
> snapshot on the master and the standby?
Hm, that's a good question. It seems like it's at least possibly
workable, but I'm not sure if there are any showstoppers. The other
proposal of publish-a-snapshot would presumably NOT support this, since
we'd not want to ship the snapshot temp files down the WAL stream.
However, if you were doing something like parallel pg_dump you could
just run the parent and child instances all against the slave, so the
pg_dump scenario doesn't seem to offer much of a supporting use-case for
worrying about this. When would you really need to be able to do it?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-06 21:53:24 | Re: serializable read only deferrable |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-06 21:06:36 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |