From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |
Date: | 2006-05-31 20:27:28 |
Message-ID: | C0A3BAC0.D203%dpage@vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 31/5/06 21:10, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>> Exactly my point; how many production Windows servers do you have with gzip
>> anywhere near them? Andreas' point about pipes is also valid though - it's
>> simply not the norm on Windows as I found when we were porting Slony
>> (more.exe barfs at >8MB being pipe in).
>
> I don't see that we should allow Windows' deficiencies to be an argument
> against providing a facility that would be useful on all our other platforms.
It's not about a primarily GUI based OS not being able to do everything a
traditionally command line based OS can do on the command line, it's about
providing a solution that will work on either and remain portable. Whilst I
agree with your objection to using pg_lzcompress, I for one would rather see
a builtin solution that I know will work whatever platform/box I'm on
without having to go and download additional tools.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-31 20:51:48 | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-05-31 20:12:17 | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |