| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: db partial dumping with pg_dump |
| Date: | 2002-08-13 19:42:23 |
| Message-ID: | 29054.1029267743@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Clearly, we should shoot for something that leverages the existing
> SELECT code rather than hang more clauses off of COPY.
Yeah, that's a good point. COPY IN is still a special case, I think,
but seems like COPY OUT could be reimplemented as a special tuple
destination for the regular executor machinery.
Q: how much performance hit would we be taking? If this slows down
pg_dump a lot, the extra code is worth keeping.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-08-13 19:52:07 | Re: regression test failure |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-13 19:38:13 | Re: Everything is now "required by the database system" |