Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-10-31 09:48:52 -0400, Tom Lane 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.
I lack adequate caffeine at the moment, so explain to me how this adds
any guarantees whatsoever? It sounded like only a performance
optimization from here.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
