| From: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2012-01-31 21:46:14 |
| Message-ID: | CACw0+11rFMThUQwd7S4PuC3oDDC0wC3AZKomBzufh18F0CrkCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> And just for added fun and excitement, they all have inconsistent
> naming conventions and inadequate documentation.
>
> I think if we need more refactoring in order to support multiple
> database connections, we should go do that refactoring. The current
> situation is not serving anyone well.
I guess I'd find it cleaner to have just one connection per Archive
(or ArchiveHandle). If you need two connections, why not just have two
Archive objects, as they would have different characteristics anyway,
one for dumping data, one to restore.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-31 22:23:04 | Re: no error context for index updates? |
| Previous Message | Soules, Craig | 2012-01-31 21:21:38 | Re: Issues with C++ exception handling in an FDW |