| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Snapshot cloning |
| Date: | 2007-01-26 16:40:38 |
| Message-ID: | 25068.1169829638@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> hel kenal peval, N, 2007-01-25 kell 22:19, kirjutas Jan Wieck:
>> The cloning process needs to make sure that the clone_snapshot() call is
>> made from the same DB user in the same database as corresponding
>> publish_snapshot() call was done.
> Why ? Snapshot is universal and same for whole db instance, so why limit
> it to same user/database ?
Yeah. Use-case: pg_dumpall could guarantee that it produces consistent
snapshots across multiple databases. (Not sure I actually want that,
but it's at least arguably useful to someone.)
I think you would want to mark a snapshot with an owner, but that would
be for the purpose of restricting who could take it down, not who could
copy it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-01-26 16:47:32 | Re: Piggybacking vacuum I/O |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-26 16:37:29 | Re: Implied Functional index use (redux) |