On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Atri Sharma (atri.jiit@gmail.com) wrote: > If its not the case, the user should be more careful about when he is > scheduling backups to so that they dont conflict with DDL changes.
I'm not following this as closely as I'd like to, but I wanted to voice my opinion that this is just not acceptable as a general answer. There are a good many applications out there which do DDL as part of ongoing activity (part of ETL, or something else) and still need to be able to get a pg_dump done. It's not a design I'd recommend, but I don't think we get to just write it off either.
Well, that will require something like MVCC or stricter locking in general. That is not in line with the aim of this patch, hence I raised this point.
