Subject: Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
	Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <19956.1213025599@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1212647003.19964.19.camel@ebony.site>
	<4847D4A7.70309@dunslane.net> <1212670595.19964.55.camel@ebony.site>
	<200806071308.00845.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<1212860515.12046.78.camel@ebony.site> <484ADAD4.2080701@dunslane.net>
	<E2AE91BB-0FCE-44CE-AC3B-200D6F1DD0BC@decibel.org>
	<19362.1213023432@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1213024379.12046.111.camel@ebony.site>
	<19956.1213025599@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:48:05 +0100
Message-Id: <1213026485.12046.123.camel@ebony.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Ah, finally a useful comment.  I think it might be possible to do an
> >> "add FK concurrently" type of command that would take exclusive lock
> 
> > That's good, but it doesn't solve the original user complaint about
> > needing to re-run many, many large queries to which we already know the
> > answer.
> 
> No, we are running a large query to which the user *thinks* he knows the
> answer.  There are any number of reasons why he might be wrong.

Of course. I should have said "to which we already know the answer" to
indicate I'm passing on others' criticisms of us.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support