| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Philip Warner'" <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump |
| Date: | 2000-10-16 22:07:38 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018D50@SECTORBASE1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >I like the pg_{import,export} names myself ... *nod*
> >
>
> Sounds fine also; but we have compatibility issues in that we
> still need pg_dump. Maybe just a symbolic link to pg_export.
Yes, we still need in pg_dump, because of pg_dump is thing
quite different from WAL based backup/restore. pg_dump
is utility to export data in system independant format
using standard SQL commands (with COPY extension) and WAL
based backup system is to export *physical* data files
(and logs). So, pg_dump should be preserved asis.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-10-16 22:12:59 | Re: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-10-16 22:03:48 | Re: AW: new relkind for view |