From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd) |
Date: | 2000-04-06 14:20:19 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000406072019.010dd1b0@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
At 01:37 PM 4/6/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>> this is not first letter about pg_dumplo which I head. What add pg_dumplo
>> to contrib or main tree?
>
>I probably haven't been paying attention. Have we heard about
>pg_dumplo? Have you posted it so we can see it?
>
>There is no fundamental problem including a utility like this in the
>main tree or the contrib/ area, but tell us more about it and show us
>the code! :)
If it runs as a separate utility, there's no way for it to guarantee
a dump consistent with the previous run of pg_dump, right?
While this is OK, one of the great things about 6.5 is the fact that
pg_dump now makes a consistent dump, you don't have to tear down all
your users before doing a backup.
So wouldn't it be better to fold pg_dumplo into pg_dump?
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-04-06 14:39:45 | Re: 7.1 items |
Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2000-04-06 13:52:58 | pg_dump and serial |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak | 2000-04-06 16:17:49 | Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd) |
Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2000-04-06 13:49:15 | Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd) |