From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | pg_dump additional options for performance |
Date: | 2008-07-20 03:07:49 |
Message-ID: | 20080720030749.GA18846@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon,
I agree with adding these options in general, since I find myself
frustrated by having to vi huge dumps to change simple schema things.
A couple of comments on the patch though:
- Conflicting option handling
I think we are doing our users a disservice by putting it on them to
figure out exactly what:
multiple object groups cannot be used together
means to them. You and I may understand what an "object group" is,
and why there can be only one, but it's a great deal less clear than
the prior message of
options -s/--schema-only and -a/--data-only cannot be used together
My suggestion would be to either list out the specific options which
can't be used together, as was done previously, or add a bit of (I
realize, boring) code and actually tell the user which of the
conflicting options were used.
- Documentation
When writing the documentation I would stress that "pre-schema" and
"post-schema" be defined in terms of PostgreSQL objects and why they
are pre vs. post.
- Technically, the patch needs to be updated slightly since another
pg_dump-related patch was committed recently which also added
options and thus causes a conflict.
Beyond those minor points, the patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-20 04:47:09 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-07-20 00:21:46 | Re: Postgres-R: primary key patches |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-20 04:47:09 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-19 08:04:08 | Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM? |