| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-06 17:31:54 |
| Message-ID: | 28227.1291656714@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Why not just say give me the snapshot currently held by process nnnn?
There's not a unique snapshot held by a particular process. Also, we
don't want to expend the overhead to fully publish every snapshot.
I think it's really necessary that the "sending" process take some
deliberate action to publish a snapshot.
> And please, not temp files if possible.
Barring the cleanup issue, I don't see why not. This is a relatively
low-usage feature, I think, so I wouldn't be much in favor of dedicating
shmem to it even if the space requirement were predictable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 17:38:42 | Re: profiling connection overhead |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 17:28:10 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |