Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-05-05 14:20:38
Message-ID: 15904.1241533238@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Still, apart from lack of interest from developpers and/or resources, is
> there some reason we don't have a pg_dump --binary option?

It seems rather antithetical to one of the main goals of pg_dump,
which is to provide a dump that can reliably be loaded onto other
machines or newer versions of Postgres. I don't think that we
should provide such a foot-gun in hopes of getting relatively
minor performance improvements; especially when we have not
exhausted the alternatives.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-05-05 14:24:48 Re: GiST index changes
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2009-05-05 14:13:43 Re: bytea vs. pg_dump