On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > Attached patch implements this change to not LOCK the table in cases > > where we don't need to. I'll push this with my other changes to pg_dump > > tomorrow (and I've included it in an updated, complete, set of patches > > sent on the thread where those changes were being discussed already). > > > Wanted to include it here also for completeness. > > > Comments welcome, of course. > > Minor suggestion: instead of putting these comments and hardwired > knowledge here, I'd suggest putting them adjacent to the list of > DUMP_COMPONENT #defines, creating a symbol along the lines of > DUMP_COMPONENTS_REQUIRING_TABLE_LOCK. That approach would make it > far more likely that somebody changing the list of DUMP_COMPONENT > elements in future would notice the possible need to adjust the > requires-lock list.
Good thought, I'll do that.
+1
I liked the new approach, initially when I was looking around code
,I also thought about why we need to hold lock on the object
which we are not interested in dumping. That is the reason
I suggested patch with adding check for DUMP_COMPONENT_DEFINITION & DUMP_COMPONENT_DATA (but ofcourse that was not perfect)
Tom suggestion for adding DUMP_COMPONENTS_REQUIRING_TABLE_LOCK