| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu>, Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net>, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, PgSQL General ML <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: State of Beta 2 |
| Date: | 2003-09-20 17:22:00 |
| Message-ID: | 25524.1064078520@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> The reality of pg_dump is not a good one. It is buggy and not very
> reliable.
I think everyone acknowledges that we have more work to do on pg_dump.
But we have to do that work anyway. Spreading ourselves thinner by
creating a whole new batch of code for in-place upgrade isn't going to
improve the situation. The thing I like about the pg_upgrade approach
is that it leverages a lot of code we already have and will need to
continue to maintain in any case.
Also, to be blunt: if pg_dump still has problems after all the years
we've put into it, what makes you think that in-place upgrade will
magically work reliably?
> This I am hoping
> changes in 7.4 as we moved to a pure "c" implementation.
Eh? AFAIR, pg_dump has always been in C.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-20 17:39:00 | Re: This mail list and its policies |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-20 17:14:07 | Re: add constraints to views |