| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Forums (at) Existanze" <forums(at)existanze(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Getting information about sequences |
| Date: | 2006-05-16 14:21:36 |
| Message-ID: | 12028.1147789296@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Forums @ Existanze" <forums(at)existanze(dot)com> writes:
> We are creating a jdbc backup solution that does NOT require the pgdump
> program.
In heaven's name, WHY?
Do you have any idea how much future pain you are setting yourself up
for? pg_dump changes with every PG release to deal with new features
and changes in the system catalogs. Read the CVS logs for pg_dump for
the past few years, then ask yourself if you really want to buy into a
comparable amount of ongoing maintenance effort.
You'd be way better off just invoking pg_dump as a subprocess. If there
are specific features you need that pg_dump doesn't have (eg, dumping
just selected tables) consider helping to add them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brandon E Hofmann | 2006-05-16 14:23:09 | Server/Database/Schema Definitions |
| Previous Message | Rafael Martinez, Guerrero | 2006-05-16 13:55:41 | Weird ..... (a=1 or a=2) <> (a=2 or a=1) |