From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Hans Buschmann <buschmann@nidsa.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Assorted improvements in pg_dump
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 16:02:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4167039.1635192154@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211025193024.ssesntsq25muk7py@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <7d7eb6128f40401d81b3b7a898b6b4de@W2012-02.nidsa.loc>
<3780613.1635109855@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20211025193024.ssesntsq25muk7py@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-10-24 17:10:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> + static bool query_prepared = false;
> I wonder if it'd be better to store this in Archive or such. The approach with
> static variables might run into problems with parallel pg_dump at some
> point. These objects aren't dumped in parallel yet, but still...
Yeah, I wasn't too happy with the static bools either. However, each
function would need its own field in the struct, which seems like a
maintenance annoyance, plus a big hazard for future copy-and-paste
changes (ie, copy and paste the wrong flag name -> trouble). Also
the Archive struct is shared between dump and restore cases, so
adding a dozen fields that are irrelevant for restore didn't feel
right. So I'd like a better idea, but I'm not sure that that one
is better.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, buschmann@nidsa.net
Subject: Re: Assorted improvements in pg_dump
In-Reply-To: <4167039.1635192154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox