Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > * Stephen Frost (sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> Looking at pg_dump, for my 2c anyway, it'd be nicer if we threw an error >> on parallel dump request when the major version doesn't support >> synchronized snapshots, unless the user explicitly passed >> --no-synchronized-snapshots, indicating that they don't care. > > Ah, bah, we do that already. Good on us. I was looking at where the > snapshot is actually taken and didn't notice the earlier check. The OP didn't mention if the DB is huge and/or inconvenient to quiesce. But in any case, doing a --jobs N dump from a per-snapshot origin system requuires the system be quiescent just long enough to get the pg_dump master process and all workers connected. I assume this is due to pg_dump running all of its N workers each using a persistent connection and in a serialized transaction. Thus --jobs --no-sync-snap is very slick indeedy!! FYI > > Nevermind me. > > Thanks, > > Stephen -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: postgres.consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx p: 312.241.7800 -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
