| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
| Date: | 2008-02-11 15:41:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1202744492.16770.109.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 10:29 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > --multidump-prefix=foobar
> > and it creates foobar.1.predata, foobar.2.data, foobar.3.postdata
> >
> > or something like that? The number would help to sort them
> > appropriately, and the string would ensure that you know what each file
> > is ... perhaps we could have %-escapes in the name to expand to both of
> > these? Perhaps we could have other %-escapes for things like database
> > name --- so you could say --multidump-filename=%d.%n.%t.dump ... but
> > then it would be nice to have strftime escapes too.
> >
> > Or is this too complex?
> >
>
> Yes, I think it is. We do not have to be infinitely flexible. KISS seems
> apposite.
What syntax do you suggest?
How about we use the --file as the prefix?
and just use a postfix of .1 and .2 and .3
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-02-11 15:50:11 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-02-11 15:29:44 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |