From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump -j against standbys |
Date: | 2016-05-24 16:39:58 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTJuGGK5jcH4FtrzoqAZRyjtzA1+r_rCeWZdEwnEDjbbw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 5/24/16 6:27 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> pg_dump: Synchronized snapshots are not supported on standby servers.
>
>
> Would it be that much harder to support this use case, perhaps by having the
> replica request the snapshot from the master on the client's behalf? It
> certainly doesn't surprise me that people would want to parallel dump from a
> replica...
For HEAD, I totally agree. However, it seems to me that what Magnus is
looking for here is a backpatch that would allow users to get more
useful information related to the error that's happening: pg_dump
provides now an error that does not help at all in diagnosing what the
problem is. And that is confusing.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | zeray87 | 2016-05-24 16:45:23 | Windows 7/8, Visual Studio 2013: Runtime error r6034 microsoft visual c++ runtime library(pgadmin3.exe) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-05-24 16:32:12 | Re: LSN as a recovery target |