| From: | Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question |
| Date: | 2015-10-07 11:44:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAP_rwwm4EhBADA0VWS+Qj2=ZSc=st8PcVHJPQh54yGGH27wHhA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oct 2 2015 01:19 "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski <
filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I just want to understand why there is LOCK TABLE not LOCK TABLE ONLY.
>
> It seems to me that you'd still want to use LOCK TABLE particularly if
> the dump is only done on a subset of tables, using --table for
> example.
Right. But please consider this use case, when I have to dunp only given
schema, nothing more and nothing less.
Is --schema option not just for that?
Locking child tables seems a bit counter-intuitive.
COPY does not touch child tables, also.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-07 12:00:43 | Re: Small documentation fix in src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/po/pt_BR.po |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-10-07 10:21:19 | Re: bugs and bug tracking |