Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 28227.1291656714@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Why not just say give me the snapshot currently held by process nnnn?

There's not a unique snapshot held by a particular process.  Also, we
don't want to expend the overhead to fully publish every snapshot.
I think it's really necessary that the "sending" process take some
deliberate action to publish a snapshot.

> And please, not temp files if possible.

Barring the cleanup issue, I don't see why not.  This is a relatively
low-usage feature, I think, so I wouldn't be much in favor of dedicating
shmem to it even if the space requirement were predictable.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: profiling connection overhead