This is a discussion on Autovacuum vs statement_timeout within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Bruce asks: >>> Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump >>> dump ...
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Bruce asks: >>> Particularly consider using psql to restore a pg_dump >>> dump --- are we going to add "SET statement_timeout=0" >>> to the pg_dump file? > >> I hope not. That should be the user's choice. > Would anyone want to limit the load time for pg_dump? I > can hardly see why. Not for pg_dump, but for psql, as you stated above. I don't have a problem adding it to pg_dump or pg_restore. They are single, atomic actions out of the control of the user. Restoring a pg_dump'ed file through psql, on the other hand, should not assume that the user might not want to keep or set their own timeout, perhaps because they want to limit the load on the server, or because of vacuuming concerns. Recall that pg_dump is not just used to restore entire systems: we can dump schemas, tables, and in the near future may even have the ability to dump different classes (schema, data, constraints). Hard-coding a forced option to the top of a potentially ginormous and hard-to-edit file that really has nothing to do with the data itself seems the wrong way to do things. It's not as if we've been inundated on the lists with tales of people getting caught on custom statement_timeouts when importing dumps. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200803111959 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF...9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkfXHqMACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgifQCgthvDCTiKhw/3A4S1na1mvlOB +MQAn2baL34c8k3FV+f2CUAn7GwDewrN =x24Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |
| |||
| Tom Lane wrote: > To me, the killer reason for statement_timeout = 0 during pg_dump > is that without it, routine cron-driven dumps could fail, and the > user might not notice until he really really needed that dump. This concrete case if of course valid, but if you take a step back, there are about half a dozen ways to configure the server to make pg_dump fail. A misconfigured pg_hba.conf would also do it. And if the server isn't running, should we start it? If we take a base backup, and archiving isn't enabled, should we enable it? Perhaps we shouldn't paper over configuration problems in inconsistent and ad hoc ways, and instead give useful configuration advice and encourage users to monitor their background jobs, which they will have to do anyway, even if we solve a misconfigured statement_timeout for them. # DON'T SET THIS PARAMETER IN THE CONFIGURATION FILE OR YOUR BACKUPS WILL FAIL could be a start. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |
| ||||
| Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> To me, the killer reason for statement_timeout = 0 during pg_dump >> is that without it, routine cron-driven dumps could fail, and the >> user might not notice until he really really needed that dump. > This concrete case if of course valid, but if you take a step back, > there are about half a dozen ways to configure the server to make > pg_dump fail. Sure, but I think in a lot of situations there is a use-case for a nonzero default statement_timeout, so it seems to me worthwhile to protect pg_dump from that rather than let DBAs find out the hard way. Also, statement_timeout is particularly nasty in that you may not see any failure when you first set up and test your dump strategy. It'll get you after your tables have grown, or on a day when there's particularly heavy activity concurrent with the dump. > # DON'T SET THIS PARAMETER IN THE CONFIGURATION FILE OR YOUR BACKUPS WILL FAIL If there are any parameters for which that is actually appropriate, wouldn't it be *more* appropriate to flat-out prevent them from being set from the config file? I believe we have a GUC variable flag already for things that shouldn't be in the file, but it's not enforced. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|