Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) 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@comcast.net
p: 312.241.7800