On 2009-05-20, Sam Mason <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 03:39:39PM +0100, Howard Cole wrote: >> Sam Mason wrote: >> >Note that when used on the pg_dump process all you're doing is stopping >> >it from writing out the backup. The server process will still be >> >running and waiting for the backup to finish writing the data. It will >> >thus hold the transaction open and any other state needed to keep things >> >going. This should be fine for temporary pauses, but it wouldn't be >> >recommended to pause the backup for days at a time. >> >> Just curious.... why would you want to pause a backup/restore? > > Yes, it seems a little perverse. There seem to be valid use cases, > disk/cpu time need temporarily elsewhere being one. As the poem goes; > "ours not to reason why"... (hum, I think it's supposed to be "theirs > not to..", ah well). In that case just invoke it with a sufficiently low priority and let the O/S deal with that issue. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
