| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, José Arthur Benetasso Villanova <jose(dot)arthur(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: directory archive format for pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-16 20:52:12 |
| Message-ID: | 12022.1292532732@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/16/2010 03:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So how bad would it be if we committed this new format without support
>> for splitting large relations into multiple files, or with some stub
>> support that never actually gets used, and fixed this later? Because
>> this is starting to sound like a bigger project than I think we ought
>> to be requiring for this patch.
> I don't think we have to have that in the first go at all. Parallel dump
> could be extremely useful without it. I haven't looked closely, but I
> assume there will still be an archive version recorded somewhere. When
> we change the archive format, bump the version number.
Sure, but it's worth thinking about the feature now. If there are
format tweaks to be made, it might be less painful to make them now
instead of later, even if actual support for the feature isn't there.
(I agree I don't want to try to implement it just yet.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-16 20:54:51 | Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-16 20:49:38 | Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation |