Re: parallel restore

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: parallel restore
Date: 2009-01-30 20:58:25
Message-ID: 498369F1.6070106@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> One thing that is bothering me is that
>>> if the connection parameters are such as to cause prompts for passwords,
>>> it's going to be broken beyond usability (multiple threads all trying
>>> to read the terminal at once). Is there anything we can do about that?
>>>
>
>
>> I thought I had put in changes to cache the password, so you shouldn't
>> get multiple prompts.
>>
>
> Ah, you can tell I hadn't gotten to the bottom of the patch yet ;-).
> Still, that's not a 100% solution because of the cases where we use
> reconnections to change user IDs --- the required password would
> (usually) vary. It might be sufficient to forbid that case with
> parallel restore, though; I think it's mostly a legacy thing anyway.
>
>

I didn't know such a thing even existed. What causes it to happen? I
agree it should be forbidden.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-30 21:08:41 Re: array_map not SQL accessible?
Previous Message Sam Mason 2009-01-30 20:55:30 Re: using composite types in insert/update