| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-02 22:32:16 |
| Message-ID: | 8927.1291329136@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/02/2010 05:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the past, proposals for this have always been rejected on the grounds
>> that it's impossible to assure a consistent dump if different
>> connections are used to read different tables. I fail to understand
>> why that consideration can be allowed to go by the wayside now.
> Well, snapshot cloning should allow that objection to be overcome, no?
Possibly, but we need to see that patch first not second.
(I'm not actually convinced that snapshot cloning is the only problem
here; locking could be an issue too, if there are concurrent processes
trying to take locks that will conflict with pg_dump's. But the
snapshot issue is definitely a showstopper.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-02 23:12:15 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-12-02 22:13:37 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |