Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout

daveg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > > <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> > > >
> > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" ?
> > > >
> > > > We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout
> > > by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump?
> > >
> > > Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line
> > > option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore.
> >
> > I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
> > flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
> > pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it.
>
> I have a patch in the queue to use set statement timeout while pg_dump is
> taking locks to avoid pg_dump hanging for other long running transactions
> that may have done ddl. Do I need to repost for discussion now?

I see it now, but I forgot how it would interact with this patch. We
would have to prevent --use-statement-timeout when lock timeout was
being used, but my point is that I see no value in having
--use-statement-timeout.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +