On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Joachim Wieland <j...@mcknight.de> wrote: > 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 :-)
True. But it looks like there are some outstanding items from previous reviews that you've yet to address, which makes pushing it out seem fairly reasonable... -- 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
