| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Denis <socsam(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
| Date: | 2012-11-14 03:56:16 |
| Message-ID: | 50A31660.1010700@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 11/13/2012 10:12 PM, Denis wrote:
> Please don't think that I'm trying to nitpick here, but pg_dump has options
> for dumping separate tables and that's not really consistent with the idea
> that "pg_dump is primarily designed for dumping entire databases".
>
>
Sure it is. The word "primarily" is not just a noise word here.
The fact that we have options to do other things doesn't mean that its
primary design goal has changed.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ants Aasma | 2012-11-14 04:11:27 | Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-11-14 03:40:57 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wu Ming | 2012-11-14 05:56:17 | Re: PostreSQL v9.2 uses a lot of memory in Windows XP |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-11-14 03:40:57 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and thousands of schemas |