| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:11:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1202749860.16770.123.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 11:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > I think this is pretty unwieldy.
>
> I agree. Since any multiple-output-file case can't usefully use stdout,
> I think we should combine the switches and just have one switch that
> says both that you want separated output and what the target filename
> is. Thus something like
>
> --pre-schema-file = foo
> --data-file = bar
> --post-schema-file = baz
>
> where specifying any of these suppresses the "normal" output to stdout.
> So, if you give just a subset of them, you get just subset output.
>
> With this design, --schema-only, --data-only, and --file are obsolete,
> and we should probably throw an error if any of them are used in
> combination with these switches.
Looks good from here.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-02-11 17:15:19 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-11 16:51:07 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |