On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 13:34, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So how close are we to having a committable version of this? Should >> we push this out to 9.2? > > I think so. The feature is pretty attractive, but more works are required: > * Re-base on synchronized snapshots patch > * Consider to use pipe also on Windows. > * Research libpq + fork() issue. We have a warning in docs: > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/libpq-connect.html > | On Unix, forking a process with open libpq connections can lead to > unpredictable results
Just for the records, once the sync snapshot patch is committed, there is no need to do fancy libpq + fork() combinations anyway. Unfortunately, so far no committer has commented on the synchronized snapshot patch at all. I am not fighting for getting parallel pg_dump done in 9.1, as I don't really have a personal use case for the patch. However it would be the irony of the year if we shipped 9.1 with a synchronized snapshot patch but no parallel dump :-) Joachim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
