Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Grittner 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 if-condition, and pushed.
Thanks for
Kevin Grittner 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 for
> review.
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane 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 (for master only) along the line
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-01-28 15:32:15 +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Andres Freund 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
Kevin Grittner writes:
> Kevin Grittner 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
On 2015-01-28 15:32:15 +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andres Freund 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 ImportSnapshot h
Kevin Grittner 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 does it (althou
Andres Freund wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Alexander Korotkov 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 cooperating processes in the same pg_dump
On 2015-01-28 14:54:15 +, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov 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 beh
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov 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 --serializable-deferrable if
> you don't?
>
>> A
Alexander Korotkov 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)] query failed: ERRO
11 matches
Mail list logo
