Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump

From: marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2010-12-06 20:48:29
Message-ID: AANLkTikOrY05Y5m6Zf0gOebAWeTqzozDYKbkB6Uf6CZw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> IIRC, in old discussions of this problem we first considered allowing
> clients to pull down an explicit representation of their snapshot (which
> actually is an existing feature now, txid_current_snapshot()) and then
> upload that again to become the active snapshot in another connection.

Could a hot standby use such a snapshot representation? I.e. same
snapshot on the master and the standby?

Greetings
Marcin Mańk

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-06 20:53:42 Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2010-12-06 20:41:11 Re: serializable read only deferrable