Re: Misc topics

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 22 June 2004 20:39
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Misc topics
>
>
> So why don't you use tar or compressed format? The Restore
> Tool is a frontend for pg_restore, which can't handle plain.
> Anyway, with file signature checking there will be just a
> message "incompatible format" or so.

Been doing it that way since 6.3 (before pg_restore existed iirc). I
keep doing it that way because there are no real space issues for me,
and if I ever need to restore a system from backup, I can upgrade at the
same time and still be able to massage the dump file into the new
version of PostgreSQL if required. I think the easy answer is to just
assume the file is a text dump if a signature cannot be found, and just
pipe it to psql (so we don't have to worry about handling \connect or
\copy ourselves).

>
> I understand, I'd simply not recommend to use plain for
> backup purposes.
> It has many disadvantages.

And some advantages.

> I'd recommend plain dump only if you'd need to edit the dump,
> i.e. if it's *not* meant for backup/restore purposes.

I always assume the worst (as one should with backups IMO) - that
something will go wrong and I may need to massage the data for some
reason.

The bottom line is, whatever view you take, plain text backups can be
done and are done - thus we should try to support them.

Regards, Dave