| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |