Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2012-01-31 21:46:14
Message-ID: CACw0+11rFMThUQwd7S4PuC3oDDC0wC3AZKomBzufh18F0CrkCQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> And just for added fun and excitement, they all have inconsistent
> naming conventions and inadequate documentation.
>
> I think if we need more refactoring in order to support multiple
> database connections, we should go do that refactoring.  The current
> situation is not serving anyone well.

I guess I'd find it cleaner to have just one connection per Archive
(or ArchiveHandle). If you need two connections, why not just have two
Archive objects, as they would have different characteristics anyway,
one for dumping data, one to restore.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-01-31 22:23:04
Subject: Re: no error context for index updates?
Previous:From: Soules, CraigDate: 2012-01-31 21:21:38
Subject: Re: Issues with C++ exception handling in an FDW

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group