| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Shelby Cain <alyandon(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] select statement against pg_stats returns |
| Date: | 2004-02-25 04:37:11 |
| Message-ID: | 403C2677.6050808@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Why? You can reconstruct it with a simple "ANALYZE" command. Dumping
> and restoring would mean nailing down cross-version assumptions about
> what it contains, which doesn't seem real forward-looking...
I seem to recall that people like that kind of thing so that the dump is
really the current state of the database.
Also, I believe big db's like DB2 and Oracle do such a thing.
I just recall it being discussed some time ago...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Creager | 2004-02-25 05:23:15 | Re: DBD::Pg 1.32 ready for testing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-25 04:15:26 | Re: [HACKERS] select statement against pg_stats returns inconsistent data |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-02-25 04:47:58 | Re: bgwriter never dies |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2004-02-25 04:21:57 | Re: bgwriter never dies |