| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| 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 15:30:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20070418153004.GA19598@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-04-18 15:40:52 | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |
| Previous Message | Harvell F | 2007-04-18 15:15:06 | Re: Backend Crash |