| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 15:50:11 |
| Message-ID: | 47B06EB3.2020704@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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
>
seems reasonable.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-11 16:51:07 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-02-11 15:41:32 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |