From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
Date: | 2012-02-01 17:24:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYo9TTttH0Tn2mXx8QD53Ya31CNnpqZYP+a4JUagSHjnQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> And just for added fun and excitement, they all have inconsistent
>> naming conventions and inadequate documentation.
>>
>> I think if we need more refactoring in order to support multiple
>> database connections, we should go do that refactoring. The current
>> situation is not serving anyone well.
>
> I guess I'd find it cleaner to have just one connection per Archive
> (or ArchiveHandle). If you need two connections, why not just have two
> Archive objects, as they would have different characteristics anyway,
> one for dumping data, one to restore.
I think we're more-or-less proposing to rename "Archive" to
"Connection", aren't we?
And then ArchiveHandle can store all the things that aren't related to
a specific connection.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-01 17:31:04 | Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-01 17:23:45 | Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables |