| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luis Carril <luis(dot)carril(at)swarm64(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-03-03 19:11:41 |
| Message-ID: | 8b1efca1-129d-60dc-7e4c-e7c11aae1e94@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Luis,
On 1/29/20 11:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
What do you think of Peter's comment?
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-03 19:32:05 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2020-03-03 18:45:14 | Re: WIP: System Versioned Temporal Table |