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

From Joachim Wieland
Subject Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Date
Msg-id CACw0+11rFMThUQwd7S4PuC3oDDC0wC3AZKomBzufh18F0CrkCQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: patch for parallel pg_dump  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> And just for added fun and excitement, they all have inconsistent
> naming conventions and inadequate documentation.
>
> I think if we need more refactoring in order to support multiple
> database connections, we should go do that refactoring.  The current
> situation is not serving anyone well.

I guess I'd find it cleaner to have just one connection per Archive
(or ArchiveHandle). If you need two connections, why not just have two
Archive objects, as they would have different characteristics anyway,
one for dumping data, one to restore.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: no error context for index updates?