| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-06 21:06:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4CFD505C.9010708@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06.12.2010 21:48, marcin mank wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> IIRC, in old discussions of this problem we first considered allowing
>> clients to pull down an explicit representation of their snapshot (which
>> actually is an existing feature now, txid_current_snapshot()) and then
>> upload that again to become the active snapshot in another connection.
>
> Could a hot standby use such a snapshot representation? I.e. same
> snapshot on the master and the standby?
Hmm, I suppose it could. That's an interesting idea, you could run
parallel pg_dump or something else against master and/or multiple hot
standby servers, all working on the same snapshot.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 21:15:41 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 20:53:42 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |