On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 12/03/2010 11:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> I think Josh Berkus' comments in the thread you mentioned are correct: >>> >>>> Actually, I'd say that there's a broad set of cases of people who want >>>> to do a parallel pg_dump while their system is active. Parallel pg_dump >>>> on a stopped system will help some people (for migration, particularly) >>>> but parallel pg_dump with snapshot cloning will help a lot more people. >> >> But you failed to quote the rest of what he said: >> >>> So: if parallel dump in single-user mode is what you can get done, then >>> do it. We can always improve it later, and we have to start somewhere. >>> But we will eventually need parallel pg_dump on active systems, and >>> that should remain on the TODO list. > > Right, and the reason I don't think that's right is that it seems to me like > a serious potential footgun. > > But in any case, the reason I quoted Josh was in answer to a different > point, namely Tom's statement about the limited potential uses.
I know the use cases are limited, but I think it's still useful on its own. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
