Re: Non-text mode for pg_dumpall

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Non-text mode for pg_dumpall
Date: 2024-06-10 16:20:18
Message-ID: ZmcnwlQ0arj532zF@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 05:45:19PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 5:03 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> Is there a particular advantage to that approach as opposed to just using
>> "directory" mode for everything? I know pg_upgrade uses "custom" mode for
>> each of the databases, so a combo approach would be a closer match to the
>> existing behavior, but that doesn't strike me as an especially strong
>> reason to keep doing it that way.
>
> A gazillion files to deal with? Much easier to work with individual custom
> files if you're moving databases around and things like that.
> Much easier to monitor eg sizes/dates if you're using it for backups.
>
> It's not things that are make-it-or-break-it or anything, but there are
> some smaller things that definitely can be useful.

Makes sense, thanks for elaborating.

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-06-10 16:21:03 Re: Non-text mode for pg_dumpall
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-06-10 15:56:19 Re: list_free in addRangeTableEntryForJoin