Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Date: 2008-02-11 17:15:19
Message-ID: 47B082A7.2040300@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.

+1

Simon, are you planning to do this? (assuming everybody agrees on the
syntax)

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-02-11 17:30:13 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-02-11 17:11:00 Re: pg_dump additional options for performance