Re: pg_dump why no indicator of completion

Ron,

That seems to be a very odd stance. PostgreSQL and it's various utilities
are and have been used in very large commercial operations for decades.
pg_dump successfully backs up databases from 1MB to 10TB and beyond. The
only issue I am having is for some inexplicable reason the devs haven't
included a status message upon completion.

If you don't think that pg_dump is fit for purpose, then what do you
propose using in its stead?

thanks,
rik.

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 10:07 AM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> That's like complaining that a Toyota Camry isn't fit for hauling 10 cubic
> yards of sand.
>
>
> On 5/1/23 08:55, richard coleman wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Are you writing that pg_dump is unfit for purpose and that I should be
> using a commercial backup solution instead?
>
> rik.
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:43 AM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/1/23 07:56, richard coleman wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>> So what you are saying is that I have to write a shell script around
>> pg_dump to catch the exit code of pg_dump since the developers of pg_dump
>> didn't have pg_dump simply write an exit message?
>>
>> Since multiple pg_dump commands are often run at the same command prompt,
>> and they can take hours, if not days to run,
>>
>>
>> Running a days-long pg_dump at any time except special occasions isn't
>> very wise. Especially from a command prompt.
>>
>> Binary backup/restore programs are *much* faster (if for no other reason
>> than they let you do incremental and differential backups).
>>
>> and there are a myriad of other commands the will be run in the interim,
>> any exit code generated by pg_dump with be lost in the flotsam and jetsam
>> of the multitude of exit codes created by every other command run between
>> the calling of pg_dump and it's eventual termination. It could have
>> completed successfully, crashed, been killed, etc.
>>
>> Or am I mistaken?
>>
>> thanks,
>> rik.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 11:28 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/23 19:18, richard coleman wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've been working with pg_dump and one thing that's always struck me as
>>> strange is that there never seems to be an indication in the log that the
>>> pg_dump process completed successfully.
>>>
>>> For example, I've been running a bunch of backups with pg_dump in
>>> directory mode with multiple jobs. When I come back several hours later
>>> there are no pg_dump processes running. The log is filled with:
>>>
>>> dumping contents of foo
>>> finished item 123456 of TABLE DATA bar
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Other than trying to restore the multi terabyte database somewhere else
>>> is there any way to know that it actually finished successfully?
>>>
>>> Why doesn't pg_dump add a line in the output like:
>>>
>>> pg_backup finished
>>>
>>> when it's completed successfully?
>>>
>>> This seems like a terrible oversight.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>>
>>>
>>> "They" expect you to do the Unix Thing and check $?. Thus, that's what
>>> I do; any non-zero value generates an email with a scary subject line, the
>>> specifics of which are based on the exact code value. I'm not near my work
>>> computer; otherwise I'd share them with you.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
>>
>
> --
> Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
>