Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-05-05 14:35:14
Message-ID: 87fxfj7h3x.fsf@hi-media-techno.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> It seems rather antithetical to one of the main goals of pg_dump,
> which is to provide a dump that can reliably be loaded onto other
> machines or newer versions of Postgres.

You're calling for a pg_export/pg_import tool suite, or I have to learn
to read again :)

> I don't think that we should provide such a foot-gun in hopes of
> getting relatively minor performance improvements; especially when we
> have not exhausted the alternatives.

If you think improvements will be minor while alternatives are
promising, of course, I'm gonna take your word for it.

Regards,
--
dim

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-05-05 14:38:33 Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-05-05 14:24:48 Re: GiST index changes