On 12/02/2010 07:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> 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.
That seems like a bit of an easy shot. Requiring that parallel pg_dump
produce a dump that is as consistent as non-parallel pg_dump currently
produces isn't unreasonable. It's not stopping us moving forward, it's just
not wanting to go backwards.
I certainly agree that would be nice. But if Joachim thought the
patch were useless without that, perhaps he wouldn't have bothered
writing it at this point. In fact, he doesn't think that, and he
mentioned the use cases he sees in his original post. But even
supposing you wouldn't personally find this useful in those
situations, how can you possibly say that HE wouldn't find it useful
in those situations? I understand that people sometimes show up here
and ask for ridiculous things, but I don't think we should be too
quick to attribute ridiculousness to regular contributors.
Umm, nobody has attributed ridiculousness to anyone. Please don't put
words in my mouth. But I think this is a perfectly reasonable discussion
to have. Nobody gets to come along and get the features they want
without some sort of consensus, not me, not you, not Joachim, not Tom.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
