From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttnet(dot)net(dot)tr>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CSV mode option for pg_dump |
Date: | 2006-06-14 03:43:32 |
Message-ID: | 19584.1150256612@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> This is just nonsense. There is not the slightest reason that CSV data
> cannot be embedded in a text dump nor exist as the data members of a
> custom or tar dump with the corresponding COPY statements modified
> accordingly.
Well, the really *core* question here is whether we trust the stability
of the CSV format definition (and code) enough to want to rely on it for
data dump/restore purposes. I'm still a few years away from that,
myself. AFAICT the raison d'etre of the CSV code is "emit whatever it
takes to satisfy this, that, and the other broken Microsoft application".
That's fine as an export tool, but as a dump/reload tool, nyet. If you
put it in pg_dump you're just handing neophytes another foot-gun.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-06-14 06:47:16 | Re: Ranges for well-ordered types |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-14 02:48:56 | Re: postgresql and process titles |