Re: 9.4 pg_dump use on 9.0 db - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Jerry Sievers
Subject Re: 9.4 pg_dump use on 9.0 db
Date
Msg-id 86a91m5zdz.fsf@jerry.enova.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.4 pg_dump use on 9.0 db  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-admin
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:

> * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
>
>> Looking at pg_dump, for my 2c anyway, it'd be nicer if we threw an error
>> on parallel dump request when the major version doesn't support
>> synchronized snapshots, unless the user explicitly passed
>> --no-synchronized-snapshots, indicating that they don't care.
>
> Ah, bah, we do that already.  Good on us.  I was looking at where the
> snapshot is actually taken and didn't notice the earlier check.

The OP didn't mention if the DB is huge and/or inconvenient to quiesce.

But in any case, doing a --jobs N dump from a per-snapshot origin system
requuires the system be quiescent just long enough to get the pg_dump
master process and all workers connected.

I assume this is due to pg_dump running all of its N workers each using
a persistent connection and in a serialized transaction.

Thus --jobs --no-sync-snap is very slick indeedy!!

FYI

>
> Nevermind me.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>         Stephen

--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres.consulting@comcast.net
p: 312.241.7800


pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.4 pg_dump use on 9.0 db
Next
From: "Campbell, Lance"
Date:
Subject: How to identify all storage in a schema