From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: statement timeout vs dump/restore |
Date: | 2008-05-05 10:38:54 |
Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579030D41B6@m0143.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Do we want the following:
>
> > 1. pg_dump issues "set statement_timeout = 0;" to the
> database prior to
> > taking its copy of data (yes/no/default-but-switchable)
> > 2. pg_dump/pg_restore issue "set statement_timeout = 0;" in
> text mode
> > output (yes/no/default-but-switchable)
> > 3. pg_restore issues "set statement_timeout = 0;" to the
> database in
> > restore mode (yes/no/default-but-switchable)
>
> I think "yes" for all three. There was some handwaving about someone
> maybe not wanting it, but an utter lack of convincing use-cases; so
> I see no point in going to the effort of providing a switch.
>
> Note that 2 and 3 are actually the same thing (if you think they are
> not, then you are putting the behavior in the wrong place).
I thought a proper fix for 3 would not depend on 2 ?
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2008-05-05 11:40:38 | Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port 636 w/o TLS |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-05-05 05:37:28 | Re: Sorting writes during checkpoint |