| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-02 23:51:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4CF8311E.4050508@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/02/2010 05:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 12/02/2010 05:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In the past, proposals for this have always been rejected on the grounds
>>> that it's impossible to assure a consistent dump if different
>>> connections are used to read different tables. I fail to understand
>>> why that consideration can be allowed to go by the wayside now.
>> Well, snapshot cloning should allow that objection to be overcome, no?
> Possibly, but we need to see that patch first not second.
Yes, I agree with that.
> (I'm not actually convinced that snapshot cloning is the only problem
> here; locking could be an issue too, if there are concurrent processes
> trying to take locks that will conflict with pg_dump's. But the
> snapshot issue is definitely a showstopper.)
>
>
Why is that more an issue with parallel pg_dump?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-02 23:58:36 | Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-12-02 23:37:05 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |