From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2010-12-03 17:37:11 |
Message-ID: | 4CF92AC7.2090803@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/03/2010 12:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie dic 03 13:56:32 -0300 2010:
>
>> I know the use cases are limited, but I think it's still useful on its own.
> I don't understand what's so difficult about starting with the snapshot
> cloning patch. AFAIR it's already been written anyway, no?
Yeah. If we can do it then this whole argument becomes moot. Like you I
don't see why we can't.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-03 17:43:13 | Re: disk caching for writing log |
Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2010-12-03 17:36:45 | Re: Idle git question: how come so many "objects"? |