Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 56204F37.60804@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question (Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/7/15 6:44 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski wrote: > Oct 2 2015 01:19 "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com > <mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski > <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com <mailto:filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > I just want to understand why there is LOCK TABLE not LOCK TABLE ONLY. > > > > It seems to me that you'd still want to use LOCK TABLE particularly if > > the dump is only done on a subset of tables, using --table for > > example. > > Right. But please consider this use case, when I have to dunp only given > schema, nothing more and nothing less. > > Is --schema option not just for that? > > Locking child tables seems a bit counter-intuitive. > > COPY does not touch child tables, also. I agree this seems unnecessary. OTOH, now that the catalog is MVCC capable, do we even still need to lock the objects for a schema-only dump? -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: