| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2007-04-18 00:54:12 |
| Message-ID: | 18235.1176857652@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> I'm with Joshua on this one. Statement_timeout is often used as a means for
> protection from long running statements due to server load and locking and
> all of the above commands can certainly fall into that area. If people feel
> strongly that the command line programs need a way to circumvent it, add
> a --ignore-statement-timeout option or similar mechanism.
The worst-case scenario here is that your server fails and you discover
that all your backups are corrupt because you didn't notice pg_dump was
failing due to statement_timeout. (Maybe it just recently started to
fail because your biggest table grew past the point at which the COPY
command exceeded statement_timeout.)
I'm not excited about the other ones but I can see the argument for
making pg_dump force the timeout to 0.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-18 00:56:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update error message for COPY with a multi-byte delimiter. |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2007-04-18 00:45:46 | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |