Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Umm, nobody has attributed ridiculousness to anyone. Please don't put 
> words in my mouth. But I think this is a perfectly reasonable discussion 
> to have. Nobody gets to come along and get the features they want 
> without some sort of consensus, not me, not you, not Joachim, not Tom.

In particular, this issue *has* been discussed before, and there was a
consensus that preserving dump consistency was a requirement.  I don't
think that Joachim gets to bypass that decision just by submitting a
patch that ignores it.
        regards, tom lane