From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: -f <output file> option for pg_dumpall |
Date: | 2007-01-06 21:17:25 |
Message-ID: | 45A011E5.6060909@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>>> I think forking a separate
>>> pg_dump for each database is a perfectly fine arrangement, and should be
>>> left alone.
>
>> Hmm, would you be happy with my original proposal to add an append option to pg_dump?
>
> I don't object to it in principle, but I think a bit more thought is
> needed as to what's the goal. A stupid "append" option would be enough
> for pg_dumpall's current capabilities (ie, text output only) --- but is
> it reasonable to consider generalizing -Fc and -Ft modes to deal with
> multiple databases, and if so how would that need to change pg_dump's
> API? (I'm not at all sure this is feasible, but let's think about it
> before plastering warts onto pg_dump, not after.)
Hmm, OK. I'll need to have a good look at the code before I can even
think about commenting on that, which will have to wait until after I've
finished bundling releases.
Regards, Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-06 21:17:33 | Re: 8.3 pending patch queue |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-06 21:08:24 | Re: [PATCHES] [Fwd: Index Advisor] |