Re: statement timeout vs dump/restore

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: statement timeout vs dump/restore
Date: 2008-05-05 13:01:25
Message-ID: 481F0525.2060702@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>
>
>

I'm sure we could separate the two if we wanted to. Since we don't it's
been put in the most natural spot, which does both.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Boreham 2008-05-05 13:36:13 Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port 636 w/o TLS
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-05-05 11:51:25 Re: Proposed Patch - LDAPS support for servers on port 636 w/o TLS