| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j |
| Date: | 2015-01-28 21:38:07 |
| Message-ID: | 8788.1422481087@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Having pg_dump use repeatable read transactions for the processes
>> that import the snapshot would work fine, as long as they are
>> reading a snapshot which was captured by a serializable read only
>> deferrable transaction.
> It looks like the attached patch does it (although it is only
> lightly tested so far and only on the master branch). This seems
> like a back-patchable bug fix (to 9.3).
> Thoughts?
A comment seems essential here, because as written anybody would think
the test for a snapshot is a bug.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-01-28 21:46:19 | Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-01-28 21:35:40 | Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j |