On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de> wrote:
> 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 :-)
True. But it looks like there are some outstanding items from
previous reviews that you've yet to address, which makes pushing it
out seem fairly reasonable...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
