From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 14:58:45 |
Message-ID: | 200704181058.46095.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 20:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 don't think I recall anyone ever complaining about this, and this scenario
has been plausible for *years*...
> I'm not excited about the other ones but I can see the argument for
> making pg_dump force the timeout to 0.
>
Allowing pg_dump to run un-checked could also lead to problems such as
exceeding maintenence windows causing performance issues, or causing trouble
due to lock contention with ongoing pg_dumps. I'll grant that the downsides
aren't as extreme, but the current functionality provides simple work arounds
(setting up specific dump users for example). If we force pg_dump to 0
timeout, what means will be provided for the DBA who doesn't want to let
pg_dump run unchecked?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-04-18 15:00:09 | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2007-04-18 14:51:48 | Re: Can't ri_KeysEqual() consider two nulls as equal? |