From: | Erik Jones <ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Pet Peeves? |
Date: | 2009-01-30 00:00:53 |
Message-ID: | F877D5FB-0F1C-4F84-BCCB-08C1AC973E82@engineyard.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:43 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 05:18:19PM +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>
>>> * No built-in ways to get the information psql gets. "See what
>>> psql is doing" isn't an option when somebody doesn't have psql on
>>> hand.
>>
>> Uhm, what information are you referring to here?
>
> All the stuff that generates \d output is available only to psql.
> When somebody wants to make another client, or even expose some of
> that functionality, they pretty much have to roll it from scratch.
I'd say a good example close of this is the ability to generate full
create statements for database objects via an SQL command. I.e.
shelling out to pg_dump is not always a fun option.
Erik Jones, Database Administrator
Engine Yard
Support, Scalability, Reliability
866.518.9273 x 260
Location: US/Pacific
IRC: mage2k
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-30 00:54:28 | Re: Full backup - pg_dumpall sufficient? |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-01-29 23:37:57 | Re: Pet Peeves? |