From: | Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to fork pg_dump or psql w/o leaking secrets? |
Date: | 2023-09-22 15:51:37 |
Message-ID: | CAFCRh--w5WjGtmNJH9D8uEO7SooZhQWTQTCL8e0sCoyGd-J6Tg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:19 PM Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 3:24 PM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> You added information I was not aware before: you are dumping
> PostgreSQL to restore it into SQLite, while I was thinking you wanted
> to do some stuff with a PostgreSQL-to-PostgreSQL backup and restore.
>
I must be really bad at explaining things today, sorry...
Because of course I'm doing PostgreSQL-to-PostgreSQL backup/restore.
The fact I use a custom SQLite DB file as the backup's "format" instead of
a "pile-of-files" (or a TAR of that pile), is the only difference.
That, and the fact it's a backup that mixes one full schema with part of
another.
And that my SQLite backup format is much more convenient and "expressive"
IMHO,
since fully introspectable ("semi-opaque", since rows are still COPY BINARY
encoded).
Writing the backup as an SQLite DB incurs a little overhead, of course,
compared to just appending to per-table files, but not that much when
in non-transactional mode. Acceptable tradeoff compared to the fact one
can open the backup easily and see the tables and rows almost as-is,
which also opens the door to partial restores (there are separates "roots",
independent entity trees, in these schemas).
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Johnson, Bruce E - (bjohnson) | 2023-09-22 17:37:39 | Accessing system information functions |
Previous Message | Luca Ferrari | 2023-09-22 15:19:05 | Re: How to fork pg_dump or psql w/o leaking secrets? |