| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Joe Abbate <jma(at)freedomcircle(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump issues |
| Date: | 2011-10-03 15:04:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobrML0=8YbrkKvsGv-1Sc9HQ7oXZ8bhdmunoOz_i-tYSg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> How would that help? This isn't a lock failure.
It is, rather, a failure to lock. Currently, LOCK TABLE only works on
tables, and pg_dump only applies it to tables. If the offending
object had been a table rather than a view, pg_dump would (I believe)
have blocked trying to obtain an AccessShareLock against the existing
AccessExclusiveLock. We talked about allowing locks on other types of
relations, but due to some bad syntax choices in the past it's not
completely obvious how to shoehorn that in.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-06/msg00119.php
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-03 15:13:55 | Re: Should we get rid of custom_variable_classes altogether? |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2011-10-03 14:55:40 | Re: Should we get rid of custom_variable_classes altogether? |