On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>>>> In the past, proposals for this have always been rejected on the >>>>> grounds >>>>> that it's impossible to assure a consistent dump if different >>>>> connections are used to read different tables. I fail to understand >>>>> why that consideration can be allowed to go by the wayside now. >>>> Well, snapshot cloning should allow that objection to be overcome, no? >>> Possibly, but we need to see that patch first not second. >> Yes, by all means let's allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. >> > > That seems like a bit of an easy shot. Requiring that parallel pg_dump > produce a dump that is as consistent as non-parallel pg_dump currently > produces isn't unreasonable. It's not stopping us moving forward, it's just > not wanting to go backwards.
I certainly agree that would be nice. But if Joachim thought the patch were useless without that, perhaps he wouldn't have bothered writing it at this point. In fact, he doesn't think that, and he mentioned the use cases he sees in his original post. But even supposing you wouldn't personally find this useful in those situations, how can you possibly say that HE wouldn't find it useful in those situations? I understand that people sometimes show up here and ask for ridiculous things, but I don't think we should be too quick to attribute ridiculousness to regular contributors. -- 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
