Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
I propose to apply the attached to master and back-patch to 9.3
Objections?
Only the nit-picky one that I quite dislike putting a comment
block inside an if-condition like that.
Comment moved above the
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
I propose to apply the attached to master and back-patch to 9.3,
and follow that with a patch (for master only) along the lines
suggested by Andres. Since *that* change is more invasive and
changes existing behavior I will submit it to the open CF
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A comment seems essential here, because as written anybody would
think the test for a snapshot is a bug.
Good point.
I propose to apply the attached to master and back-patch to 9.3,
and follow that with a patch
On 2015-01-28 15:32:15 +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
ISTM that the check is just overzelous and/or needs to be moved into
ImportSnapshot(). There it then could be made to check if the exporting
xact was also deferrable.
That would be great if
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Having pg_dump use repeatable read transactions for the processes
that import the snapshot would work fine, as long as they are
reading a snapshot which was captured by a serializable read only
deferrable transaction.
It looks like the attached patch
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com writes:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Having pg_dump use repeatable read transactions for the processes
that import the snapshot would work fine, as long as they are
reading a snapshot which was captured by a serializable read only
deferrable
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-01-28 15:32:15 +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
ISTM that the check is just overzelous and/or needs to be moved into
ImportSnapshot(). There it then could be made to check if the exporting
xact was
On 2015-01-28 14:54:15 +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Could we start snapshot-importing transaction with repeatable
read isolation level?
You can if you don't use the option which specifies that you
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Could we start snapshot-importing transaction with repeatable
read isolation level?
If you are talking about having pg_dump acquire a safe snapshot and
have
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
Could we start snapshot-importing transaction with repeatable
read isolation level?
You can if you don't use the option which specifies that you want
serializable behavior. Why specify
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com wrote:
when pg_dump is run with both --serializable-deferrable and -j
options to pg_dump, it returns errors:
pg_dump: [archiver (db)] query failed: ERROR: a snapshot-importing
transaction must not be READ ONLY DEFERRABLE
pg_dump: [archiver (db)]
Hackers,
when pg_dump is run with both --serializable-deferrable and -j options to
pg_dump, it returns errors:
pg_dump: [archiver (db)] query failed: ERROR: a snapshot-importing
transaction must not be READ ONLY DEFERRABLE
pg_dump: [archiver (db)] query failed: ERROR: a snapshot-importing
12 matches
Mail list logo
