Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2010-12-06 14:58:41
Message-ID: 4CFCFA21.5040409@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 06.12.2010 15:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> I guess. It still seems far too much like exposing the server's guts
> for my taste. It might not be as bad as the expression tree stuff,
> but there's nothing particularly good about it either.

Note that we already have txid_current_snapshot() function, which
exposes all that.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-06 15:08:21 Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Previous Message Marc Balmer 2010-12-06 14:55:38 Re: Suggesting a libpq addition