| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luis Carril <luis(dot)carril(at)swarm64(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Option to dump foreign data in pg_dump |
| Date: | 2020-01-29 16:05:13 |
| Message-ID: | 2a15ed10-77e3-5885-a247-e65b9e5e8407@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-01-21 10:36, Luis Carril wrote:
>> Yes we can support --include-foreign-data without parallel option and
>> later add support for parallel option as a different patch.
>
> Hi,
>
> I've attached a new version of the patch in which an error is
> emitted if the parallel backup is used with the --include-foreign-data
> option.
This seems like an overreaction. The whole point of
lockTableForWorker() is to avoid deadlocks, but foreign tables don't
have locks, so it's not a problem. I think you can just skip foreign
tables in lockTableForWorker() using the same logic that getTables() uses.
I think parallel data dump would be an especially interesting option
when using foreign tables, so it's worth figuring this out.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-01-29 17:08:35 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-01-29 15:55:10 | Re: making the backend's json parser work in frontend code |