Re: pg_get_tabledef

I mean as a shared library - a .so for Unix (or whatever the flavor of
unix uses instead) or a DLL on WIndows. And no, it would not be in
contrib - as I mentioned in another thread yesterday I want to propose
that contrib disappear.

Certainly pg_dump would use the library, and retain all the file
handling processing it does now. But we could also link it into psql,
for example, and expose the results via \ commands.

If you want to have a go at that you'll probably make lots of people
very happy.

cheers

andrew

Usama Munir wrote:
> When you say pgdump library, do you mean taking all catalog querying
> functionality into a contrib like module , exposed as functions and
> then have a simple pgdump executable which calls those functions to
> dump to a file, because you would still need a pgdump executable i
> suppose for people to be able to backup their stuff. Is my
> understanding somewhere near actual idea or i am way off here?
>
>
> Are there any discussions on this topic which could give me a little
> more idea? because i would definitely like to take a shot at this.
>
> Regards,
> Usama Munir
> EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
>
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Usama Munir wrote:
>>> I think using pg_dump in some cases is a good option , but not all
>>> the time, having a function makes it much cleaner to use
>>
>> That's why having a shared pgdump library as has been previously
>> mentioned is by far the best solution.
>>
>> We have discussed this before, and factoring out this functionality
>> into a shared lib is what needs to be done. I'm not convinced it is
>> as much work as Tom suggests, but it is certainly a non-trivial task.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> andrew
>