Re: pg_dump directory archive format / parallel pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joachim Wieland
Subject Re: pg_dump directory archive format / parallel pg_dump
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=9SEkMdG0wkEGPCsVh9gd6jYohFXDO6gwL+5vo@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump directory archive format / parallel pg_dump  (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump directory archive format / parallel pg_dump
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 13:34, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So how close are we to having a committable version of this?  Should
>> we push this out to 9.2?
>
> I think so. The feature is pretty attractive, but more works are required:
>  * Re-base on synchronized snapshots patch
>  * Consider to use pipe also on Windows.
>  * Research libpq + fork() issue. We have a warning in docs:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/libpq-connect.html
> | On Unix, forking a process with open libpq connections can lead to
> unpredictable results

Just for the records, once the sync snapshot patch is committed, there
is no need to do fancy libpq + fork() combinations anyway.
Unfortunately, so far no committer has commented on the synchronized
snapshot patch at all.

I am not fighting for getting parallel pg_dump done in 9.1, as I don't
really have a personal use case for the patch. However it would be the
irony of the year if we shipped 9.1 with a synchronized snapshot patch
but no parallel dump  :-)


Joachim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hitoshi Harada
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/python do not delete function arguments
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Basic Recovery Control functions for use in Hot Standby. Pause,