Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j
Date: 2015-01-30 15:19:40
Message-ID: 493940415.1823011.1422631180673.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:

>> I propose to apply the attached to master and back-patch to 9.3

>> Objections?
>
> Only the nit-picky one that I quite dislike putting a comment
> block inside an if-condition like that.

Comment moved above the if-condition, and pushed.

Thanks for the report, Alexander!

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2015-01-30 15:24:24 Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-01-30 15:13:49 Re: Overhauling our interrupt handling (was Escaping from blocked send() reprised.)