From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question |
Date: | 2015-10-16 01:13:27 |
Message-ID: | 56204F37.60804@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/7/15 6:44 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote:
> Oct 2 2015 01:19 "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski
> <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>>
> wrote:
> > > I just want to understand why there is LOCK TABLE not LOCK TABLE ONLY.
> >
> > It seems to me that you'd still want to use LOCK TABLE particularly if
> > the dump is only done on a subset of tables, using --table for
> > example.
>
> Right. But please consider this use case, when I have to dunp only given
> schema, nothing more and nothing less.
>
> Is --schema option not just for that?
>
> Locking child tables seems a bit counter-intuitive.
>
> COPY does not touch child tables, also.
I agree this seems unnecessary.
OTOH, now that the catalog is MVCC capable, do we even still need to
lock the objects for a schema-only dump?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-10-16 02:13:35 | Re: Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap' |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-10-16 00:47:31 | Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message |