Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2010-12-03T00:13:46Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.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, by all means let's allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company