Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_dump and pgpool

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump and pgpool
Date: 2004-12-29 22:33:18
Message-ID: 18331.1104359598@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 16:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I would like to know exactly what pgpool has done to break pg_dump.

> What's happening is that there are two databases behind pgpool, and each
> has managed to assign a different (set of) OID(s) to the table(s).  So,
> when pg_dump asks for an OID, it gets two different ones.

Mph.  I'd have zero confidence in a dump taken under such circumstances,
anyway.  If pgpool can't duplicate OIDs (which I agree it probably
can't) then it's unlikely to be able to make the databases match closely
enough to satisfy pg_dump in other ways.  I'd worry about
synchronization issues to start with...

I don't think we should make pg_dump slower and possibly less reliable
in order to support a fundamentally dangerous administration procedure.
Run pg_dump directly into the database, not through pgpool.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-12-29 22:36:26
Subject: Re: WARNING: group with ID NNN does not exist
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-12-29 22:28:36
Subject: Re: debug_print_plan (pg7.4) doesn't seem to do anything

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group