On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:30:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> daveg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:51:28PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > > > <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > > > > Joshua D. Drake escribi?:
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is an interesting idea. Something like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pg_restore -E "SET STATEMENT_TIMEOUT=0; SET MAINTENANCE_WORK_MEM=1G" ?
> > > > >
> > > > > We already have it -- it's called PGOPTIONS.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok but is not the purpose of the patch to turn off statement_timeout
> > > > by *default* in pg_restore/pg_dump?
> > > >
> > > > Here is an updated patch for I posted above (with the command line
> > > > option --use-statement-timeout) for pg_dump and pg_restore.
> > >
> > > I would like to get do this without adding a new --use-statement-timeout
> > > flag. Is anyone going to want to honor statement_timeout during
> > > pg_dump/pg_restore? I thought we were just going to disable it.
> >
> > I have a patch in the queue to use set statement timeout while pg_dump is
> > taking locks to avoid pg_dump hanging for other long running transactions
> > that may have done ddl. Do I need to repost for discussion now?
>
> I see it now, but I forgot how it would interact with this patch. We
> would have to prevent --use-statement-timeout when lock timeout was
> being used, but my point is that I see no value in having
> --use-statement-timeout.
lock-timeout sets statement_timeout to a small value while locks are being
taken on all the tables. Then it resets it to default. So it could reset it
to whatever the new default is.
Do I need to adjust my patch or something?
-dg
--
David Gould daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
