| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "'Noah Misch'" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
| Date: | 2012-09-05 16:00:18 |
| Message-ID: | 18881.1346860818@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I am not saying its bad that it is slower, that's absolutely OK. Just that it will take a variable amount of time till you can run pgdump again and its not easily detectable without looping and trying again.
Well, that's why the proposed libpq code is written to wait for the
child postgres to exit when closing the connection.
Admittedly, if you forcibly kill pg_dump (or some other client) and then
immediately try to start a new one, it's not clear how long you'll have
to wait. But so what? Anything we might do in this space is going to
have pluses and minuses.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-09-05 17:08:43 | Re: Cascading replication and recovery_target_timeline='latest' |
| Previous Message | anarazel@anarazel.de | 2012-09-05 15:56:33 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |