On 2012-12-13 21:40:43 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2012-12-13 11:02:06 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 12-12-12 06:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Possible solutions:
1) INIT_LOGICAL_REPLICATION waits for an answer from the client that
confirms that logical replication initialization is
On 12-12-12 06:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Possible solutions:
1) INIT_LOGICAL_REPLICATION waits for an answer from the client that
confirms that logical replication initialization is finished. Before
that the walsender connection cannot be used for anything else.
2) we remove the snapshot as
On 2012-12-13 11:02:06 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 12-12-12 06:20 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Possible solutions:
1) INIT_LOGICAL_REPLICATION waits for an answer from the client that
confirms that logical replication initialization is finished. Before
that the walsender connection cannot be
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is why the pg_dump master process executes a
lock table table in access share mode
for every table, so your commands would all block.
A lock doesn't protect against schema changes made before the lock was
taken. The
On 2012-12-13 17:11:31 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is why the pg_dump master process executes a
lock table table in access share mode
for every table, so your commands would all block.
A lock doesn't protect against
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That would solve the consistency problem, yes. Would we need a special
kind of permission for this? I would say superuser/database owner only?
Yeah, I doubt we would need a whole new permission for it, but it
would
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
That would solve the consistency problem, yes. Would we need a special
kind of permission for this? I would say superuser/database owner only?
Yeah, I doubt we would need a
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
That would solve the consistency problem, yes. Would we need a special
kind of permission for this? I
On 2012-12-11 21:05:51 -0500, Joachim Wieland wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
visibility issues of the table's contents it does not protect against
schema changes. I am not
On 2012-12-11 22:20:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de writes:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
visibility issues of the table's contents it does not
On 2012-12-11 22:39:14 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 12-12-11 06:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
Problem 1:
One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
visibility issues of the table's contents it does not protect against
schema changes. I am not sure whether thats a
On 2012-12-12 12:13:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2012-12-11 22:20:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de writes:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2012-12-12 12:13:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
This morning I wondered whether we couldn't protect against that by
acquiring share locks on the catalog rows pg_dump reads, that would
result in could not serialize access due to concurrent update
On 2012-12-12 18:52:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2012-12-12 12:13:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
This morning I wondered whether we couldn't protect against that by
acquiring share locks on the catalog rows pg_dump reads, that would
result in
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
visibility issues of the table's contents it does not protect against
schema changes. I am not sure whether thats a problem.
If somebody runs a CLUSTER
Joachim Wieland j...@mcknight.de writes:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
visibility issues of the table's contents it does not protect against
schema changes. I am not sure whether
On 12-12-11 06:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
Problem 1:
One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
visibility issues of the table's contents it does not protect against
schema changes. I am not sure whether thats a problem.
If somebody runs a CLUSTER or something
17 matches
Mail list logo
