Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Filip Rembiałkowski
Subject Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question
Date
Msg-id CAP_rwwm4EhBADA0VWS+Qj2=ZSc=st8PcVHJPQh54yGGH27wHhA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump LOCK TABLE ONLY question  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
<p dir="ltr">Oct 2 2015 01:19 "Michael Paquier" <<a
href="mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com">michael.paquier@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > On Thu, Oct 1,
2015at 10:43 PM, Filip Rembiałkowski  <<a
href="mailto:filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com">filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br /> > > I just want to
understandwhy there is LOCK TABLE not LOCK TABLE ONLY.<br /> ><br /> > It seems to me that you'd still want to
useLOCK TABLE particularly if<br /> > the dump is only done on a subset of tables, using --table for<br /> >
example.<pdir="ltr">Right. But please consider this use case, when I have to dunp only given schema, nothing more and
nothingless.<p dir="ltr">Is --schema option not just for that?<p dir="ltr">Locking child tables seems a bit
counter-intuitive.<pdir="ltr">COPY does not touch child tables, also.<br /><br /><br /> 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: bugs and bug tracking
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Small documentation fix in src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/po/pt_BR.po