| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: -f <output file> option for pg_dumpall |
| Date: | 2007-01-05 22:52:37 |
| Message-ID: | 10168.1168037557@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Hmm, well I have no interest in the latter at present, but assuming the
> powers that be will allow me some time to do so, I will look at merging
> pg_dump and pg_dumpall as that seems to be the way people want to go.
I think this will be an exercise in time-wasting, and very possibly
destabilize *both* tools. pg_dump has never been designed to reconnect
to a different database; for instance there isn't any code for resetting
all the internal state that it gathers. I think forking a separate
pg_dump for each database is a perfectly fine arrangement, and should be
left alone.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-05 22:54:57 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp major release 8.3.0, and |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-05 22:48:17 | Re: -f <output file> option for pg_dumpall |