Re: Autovacuum vs statement_timeout

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/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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