On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> But more to the point, this seems like optimizing pg_dump startup by >> adding overhead everywhere else, which doesn't really sound like a >> great tradeoff to me. > > Well, it'd finally make pg_dump "correct" under concurrent DDL. That's > quite a worthwile thing.
Yeah, exactly. I agree with Tom that the overhead might be a concern. But on the other hand, nobody has been more concerned about the failure of pg_dump to handle this issue correctly than Tom. -- 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
