Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-03-03 20:32:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You're missing the point entirely if you think pg_dump recreates
>> everything client-side.
> No, I am not obviously not thinking that. What I mean is that the things
> that actually change their locking requirement in the proposed patch
> primarily influence things that are reconstructed clientside by
> pg_dump. E.g ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON, SET(...), ...
[ raised eyebrow... ] I'm pretty sure that no such constraint was
part of the design discussion to start with. Even if it accidentally
happens to be the case now, it sounds utterly fragile.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
