| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump --snapshot |
| Date: | 2013-05-06 20:40:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKJz8404hy8hWrU-pdz4XPMBf6UtRnCF1fR0+Z0ZUUjmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6 May 2013 19:35, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> It certainly sounds interesting and I like the idea of it, but perhaps
> we need a different mechanism than just passing in a raw snapshot, to
> address the concerns that Tom raised.
It does *not* pass in a raw snapshot. All it does is to allow pg_dump
to use an API that is already exposed by the backend for this very
purpose, one that has been in Postgres since 9.2.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-admin.html#FUNCTIONS-SNAPSHOT-SYNCHRONIZATION
Minor patch, no amazing new functionality, no drama.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-05-06 21:02:25 | Re: pg_dump --snapshot |
| Previous Message | Matt Clarkson | 2013-05-06 20:18:52 | Re: In progress INSERT wrecks plans on table |