From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, 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 16:37:04 |
Message-ID: | 46264930.3070307@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
If you have that problem, you need bigger hardware. pg_dump is a
priority application. Not to mention, if you *really* want that time of
behavior it is easy enough to wrap pg_dump in perl or python.
Let the foot guns be available to those that can script them :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-04-18 16:38:06 | Re: utf8 COPY DELIMITER? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-04-18 15:40:52 | Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout |