| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-03 00:13:46 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=Ub5sddoWS+O302o9CjfM8eezfUWw09rE_J6Xe@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 12/02/2010 05:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In the past, proposals for this have always been rejected on the grounds
>>> that it's impossible to assure a consistent dump if different
>>> connections are used to read different tables. I fail to understand
>>> why that consideration can be allowed to go by the wayside now.
>
>> Well, snapshot cloning should allow that objection to be overcome, no?
>
> Possibly, but we need to see that patch first not second.
Yes, by all means let's allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-03 00:14:27 | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-03 00:12:50 | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |