On 2018-03-02 11:42:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There seems to to be consensus in this thread that the approach Lucas
> > proposed isn't what we want, and that instead some shared lock based
> > approach is desirable. As that has been th
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> There seems to to be consensus in this thread that the approach Lucas
> proposed isn't what we want, and that instead some shared lock based
> approach is desirable. As that has been the case for ~1.5 months, I
> propose we mark this as retur
On 2018-01-15 12:12:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Parallel pg_dump is based on synchronized transactions though and we
> > have a bunch of checks in ImportSnapshot() because a pg_dump parallel
> > worker also can't really be quite the same
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Parallel pg_dump is based on synchronized transactions though and we
> have a bunch of checks in ImportSnapshot() because a pg_dump parallel
> worker also can't really be quite the same as a normal backend. Perhaps
> we could add on more res
Lucas, Robert, all,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I wonder if we couldn't somehow repurpose the work that was done for
> > parallel workers' locks. Lots of security-type issues to be handled
> > if we're to open that up to clie
