Re: why -Fdance archive format option works with ./pg_restore but not with ./pg_dump?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Srinath Reddy <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why -Fdance archive format option works with ./pg_restore but not with ./pg_dump?
Date: 2025-01-24 15:24:06
Message-ID: 371361.1737732246@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:
> I don't think we need a new file for this. pg_backup_utils.c is already
> there for routines common to pg_restore and pg_dump.

I'm not even on board with having a new function, because I doubt
we should try to share this code in the first place. Who's to
say that pg_dump and pg_restore must support exactly the same list
of formats? For example, in the future we might decide that some
format is obsolete and desupport it in pg_dump, while continuing
to allow it for awhile in pg_restore for compatibility reasons.
A closer-to-home possibility is that the work to allow non-text
output from pg_dumpall will result in a format that pg_restore
can read but pg_dump (by itself) doesn't write.

So I'd just scrap pg_restore's parsing logic for this and replace it
in-place. To the extent that that's copying and pasting stuff, fine.
It's not like there's no other duplicativeness in their switch-parsing
logic.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Benoit Lobréau 2025-01-24 15:26:23 Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX (with patch)
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2025-01-24 15:22:30 Re: Purpose of wal_init_zero