| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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 17:46:28 |
| Message-ID: | 4075.1202751988@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:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> --pre-schema-file = foo
>> --data-file = bar
>> --post-schema-file = baz
> this looks good. But arguably it's really pre-data and post-data.
> pre-schema would be something that comes before the schema, no? Or maybe
> it should be {pre,post}-data-schema-file.
I was thinking that the names were a bit long, but I'm not sure we can
get away with omitting "-file". --pre-file, --data-file, --post-file
are nice and short, but perhaps fail to convey the meaning?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2008-02-11 17:56:29 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-02-11 17:42:46 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |