Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id 20140304144949.GE12995@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com>)
Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Atri Sharma (atri.jiit@gmail.com) wrote:
> If its not the case, the user should be more careful about when he is
> scheduling backups to so that they dont conflict with DDL changes.

I'm not following this as closely as I'd like to, but I wanted to voice
my opinion that this is just not acceptable as a general answer.  There
are a good many applications out there which do DDL as part of ongoing
activity (part of ETL, or something else) and still need to be able to
get a pg_dump done.  It's not a design I'd recommend, but I don't think
we get to just write it off either.
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yeb Havinga
Date:
Subject: Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node)