| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
| Date: | 2007-04-18 16:51:48 |
| Message-ID: | 200704181251.48624.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 11:30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 20:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > 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 have never ever seen a request to be able to control pg_dump and have
> it stop dumping if the time taken to dump exceeded a threshold.
Given that we already have the functionality, I suspect you wouldn't...
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-04-18 17:01:04 | Re: Background LRU Writer/free list |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-04-18 16:38:06 | Re: utf8 COPY DELIMITER? |