Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question
| От | Filip Rembiałkowski |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAP_rwwm4EhBADA0VWS+Qj2=ZSc=st8PcVHJPQh54yGGH27wHhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
<p dir="ltr">Oct 2 2015 01:19 "Michael Paquier" <<a href="mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com">michael.paquier@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015at 10:43 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski <<a href="mailto:filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com">filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br /> > > I just want to understandwhy there is LOCK TABLE not LOCK TABLE ONLY.<br /> ><br /> > It seems to me that you'd still want to useLOCK TABLE particularly if<br /> > the dump is only done on a subset of tables, using --table for<br /> > example.<pdir="ltr">Right. But please consider this use case, when I have to dunp only given schema, nothing more and nothingless.<p dir="ltr">Is --schema option not just for that?<p dir="ltr">Locking child tables seems a bit counter-intuitive.<pdir="ltr">COPY does not touch child tables, also.<br /><br /><br />
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: