From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
Date: | 2008-07-21 15:38:04 |
Message-ID: | 14137.1216654684@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe invert the logic?
>> --omit-pre-data
>> --omit-data
>> --omit-post-data
> Please, no. Negative logic seems likely to cause endless confusion.
I think it might actually be less confusing, because with this approach,
each switch has an identifiable default (no) and setting it doesn't
cause side-effects on settings of other switches. The interactions of
the switches as Simon presents 'em seem less than obvious.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2008-07-21 16:07:24 | Re: Default of max_stack_depth and getrlimit |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-21 15:27:14 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust things so that the query_string of a cached plan and the |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-07-21 19:19:25 | Re: page macros cleanup (ver 04) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-07-21 15:28:30 | Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM? |