Re: pg_dump bug ... or not?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump bug ... or not? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16005.1010618004@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_dump bug ... or not? ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > Did I ever send in a bug report about pg_dump 'crashing' while dumping a > database where one of the tables gets drop'd while the pg_dump is running? > Not the easiest thing to reproduce, mind you, cause its a matter of that > one in a million timing thing ... but, if you run pg_dump against a > database where one of the tables yet to be dump gets drop'd, the pg_dump > will crash, as opposed to just skipping it and continue with those tables > that still exist ... I'd be inclined to fix this by having pg_dump issue a LOCK IN ACCESS SHARE MODE against each table as it reads the table name from pg_class. Not by allowing tables to disappear from under us after the dump starts. The idea of pg_dump is to produce a consistent snapshot, no? Even that is not *perfectly* secure since the locking phase will take more than zero time, but it seems close enough. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: