Re: 9.4 pg_dump use on 9.0 db
От | Jerry Sievers |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.4 pg_dump use on 9.0 db |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 86a91m5zdz.fsf@jerry.enova.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.4 pg_dump use on 9.0 db (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote: > >> Looking at pg_dump, for my 2c anyway, it'd be nicer if we threw an error >> on parallel dump request when the major version doesn't support >> synchronized snapshots, unless the user explicitly passed >> --no-synchronized-snapshots, indicating that they don't care. > > Ah, bah, we do that already. Good on us. I was looking at where the > snapshot is actually taken and didn't notice the earlier check. The OP didn't mention if the DB is huge and/or inconvenient to quiesce. But in any case, doing a --jobs N dump from a per-snapshot origin system requuires the system be quiescent just long enough to get the pg_dump master process and all workers connected. I assume this is due to pg_dump running all of its N workers each using a persistent connection and in a serialized transaction. Thus --jobs --no-sync-snap is very slick indeedy!! FYI > > Nevermind me. > > Thanks, > > Stephen -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: postgres.consulting@comcast.net p: 312.241.7800
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: