On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Atri Sharma (atri.j...@gmail.com) wrote: > > If its not the case, the user should be more careful about when he is > > scheduling backups to so that they dont conflict with DDL changes. > > I'm not following this as closely as I'd like to, but I wanted to voice > my opinion that this is just not acceptable as a general answer. There > are a good many applications out there which do DDL as part of ongoing > activity (part of ETL, or something else) and still need to be able to > get a pg_dump done. It's not a design I'd recommend, but I don't think > we get to just write it off either. > > Well, that will require something like MVCC or stricter locking in general. That is not in line with the aim of this patch, hence I raised this point. Regards, Atri Regards, Atri *l'apprenant*
