| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: basebackups during ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE ... not safe? |
| Date: | 2015-01-28 00:24:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY-eVSqmeNvbbaOgVR87mijif3q3EXUHSqz071AieVx1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That'd end up essentially being a re-emulation of locks. Don't find that
> all that pretty. But maybe we have to go there.
The advantage of it is that it is simple. The only thing we're really
giving up is the deadlock detector, which I think isn't needed in this
case.
> Here's an alternative approach. I think it generally is superior and
> going in the right direction, but I'm not sure it's backpatchable.
I tend think this is changing too many things to back-patch. It might
all be fine, but it's pretty wide-reaching, so the chances of
collateral damage seem non-trivial. Even in master, I'm not sure I
see the point in rocking the apple cart to this degree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-28 00:25:07 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-01-27 23:58:14 | Re: Shortcoming in CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY coverage: disk buffer pointers |