| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronized snapshots versus multiple databases |
| Date: | 2011-10-21 18:30:17 |
| Message-ID: | 29530.1319221817@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 1. Restrict exported snapshots to be loaded only by transactions running
>> in the same database as the exporter. This would fix the problem, but
>> it cuts out one of the main use-cases for sync snapshots, namely getting
>> cluster-wide-consistent dumps in pg_dumpall.
> I am unexcited by #2 on usability grounds. I agree with you that #3
> might end up being a fairly small pessimization in practice, but I'd
> be inclined to just do #1 for now and revisit the issue when and if
> someone shows an interest in revamping pg_dumpall to do what you're
> proposing (and hopefully a bunch of other cleanup too).
Seems like that is the consensus view, so that's what I'll do.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-21 18:33:31 | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-10-21 18:21:47 | psql command for bytea output |