Estimate the size of the SQL file generated by pg_dump utility

Dear All,
I have to take backup of a database as a SQL file using the pg_dump
utility and I have to check the disk space
before taking the backup. Hence I need to estimate the size of the
pg_dump output.
The size given by pg_database_size procedure and the size of file
generated by pg_dump
vary to a large extent. Kindly let me know how to estimate the size of
the file that pg_dump generates.

Note: Please bear with us for the disclaimer because it is automated in
the exchange server.
Regards,
Ravi

DISCLAIMER:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates.
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and
attachments please check them for viruses and defect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

am Mon, dem 05.03.2007, um 20:25:21 +0530 mailte Ravindran G-TLS,Chennai. folgendes:
> Dear All,
>
> I have to take backup of a database as a SQL file using the pg_dump utility and
> I have to check the disk space
>
> before taking the backup. Hence I need to estimate the size of the pg_dump
> output.

You can take a empty backup by pipe the output to wc -c. Is this a
solution for you? You can see the result size in bytes.

Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net

Ravindran G-TLS,Chennai. wrote:
> Note: Please bear with us for the disclaimer because it is automated in
> the exchange server.
> Regards,
> Ravi

FYI, we are getting closer to rejecting any email with such a
disclaimer, or emailing you back every time saying we are ignoring the
disclaimer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> DISCLAIMER:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
> It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in
> this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates.
> Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of
> this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and
> attachments please check them for viruses and defect.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ravindran G-TLS,Chennai. wrote:
>> Note: Please bear with us for the disclaimer because it is automated in
>> the exchange server.
>> Regards,
>> Ravi
>
> FYI, we are getting closer to rejecting any email with such a
> disclaimer, or emailing you back every time saying we are ignoring the
> disclaimer.

I think this issue cropped up a year or two ago, and one of the
suggestions was for the offender to simply put a link back to their
disclaimer at the foot of their email, rather than that uber-verbose
message.

Bricklen Anderson wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Ravindran G-TLS,Chennai. wrote:
> >> Note: Please bear with us for the disclaimer because it is automated in
> >> the exchange server.
> >> Regards,
> >> Ravi
> >
> > FYI, we are getting closer to rejecting any email with such a
> > disclaimer, or emailing you back every time saying we are ignoring the
> > disclaimer.
>
> I think this issue cropped up a year or two ago, and one of the
> suggestions was for the offender to simply put a link back to their
> disclaimer at the foot of their email, rather than that uber-verbose
> message.

Right. The problem is that most of the posters have no control over
their footers --- it is added by their email software.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:

> Bricklen Anderson wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Ravindran G-TLS,Chennai. wrote:
> > >> Note: Please bear with us for the disclaimer because it is automated in
> > >> the exchange server.
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Ravi
> > >
> > > FYI, we are getting closer to rejecting any email with such a
> > > disclaimer, or emailing you back every time saying we are ignoring the
> > > disclaimer.
> >
> > I think this issue cropped up a year or two ago, and one of the
> > suggestions was for the offender to simply put a link back to their
> > disclaimer at the foot of their email, rather than that uber-verbose
> > message.
>
> Right. The problem is that most of the posters have no control over
> their footers --- it is added by their email software.

I'm curious, what problem does the disclaimer cause?

I wrote the following TOS for my personal system:
https://www.potentialtech.com/cms/node/9
Excerpt of the relevant part:
"If you send me email, you are granting me the unrestricted right to use
the contents of that email however I see fit, unless otherwise agreed in
writing beforehand. You have no rights to the privacy of any email that you
send me. If I feel the need, I will forward emails to authorities or make
their contents publicly available. By sending me email you consent to this
policy and agree that it overrides any disclaimers or policies that may
exist elsewhere."

I have no idea if that's legally binding or not, but I've talked to a few
associates who have some experience in law, and they all argue that email
disclaimers probably aren't legally binding anyway -- so the result is
undefined.

Don't know if this addresses the issue or confuses it ... ?

--
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.

Bill Moran wrote:
> I'm curious, what problem does the disclaimer cause?
>
> I wrote the following TOS for my personal system:
> https://www.potentialtech.com/cms/node/9
> Excerpt of the relevant part:
> "If you send me email, you are granting me the unrestricted right to use
> the contents of that email however I see fit, unless otherwise agreed in
> writing beforehand. You have no rights to the privacy of any email that you
> send me. If I feel the need, I will forward emails to authorities or make
> their contents publicly available. By sending me email you consent to this
> policy and agree that it overrides any disclaimers or policies that may
> exist elsewhere."
>
> I have no idea if that's legally binding or not, but I've talked to a few
> associates who have some experience in law, and they all argue that email
> disclaimers probably aren't legally binding anyway -- so the result is
> undefined.

No, it's not legally binding. Agreements are only binding if both parties agree, and someone sending you email has not consented to your statement. If I send you something with a copyright mark, you'd better respect it unless you have a signed agreement granting you rights. Federal law always wins.

Disclaimers are bad for two reasons. First, they're powerless. Just because Acme Corp. attaches a disclaimer doesn't mean they've absolved themselves of responsibility for the actions of their employees. Second, they're insulting to the employees. It's a big red flag saying, "We, Acme Corp., hire clowns we don't trust, and THIS person may be one of them!"

Craig

> > I'm curious, what problem does the disclaimer cause?
> >
> > I wrote the following TOS for my personal system:
> > https://www.potentialtech.com/cms/node/9
> > Excerpt of the relevant part:
> > I have no idea if that's legally binding or not, but I've talked to a few
> > associates who have some experience in law, and they all argue that email
> > disclaimers probably aren't legally binding anyway -- so the result is
> > undefined.
>
> No, it's not legally binding. Agreements are only binding if both parties agree, and someone sending you email has not consented to your statement. If I send you something with a copyright mark, you'd better respect it unless you have a signed agreement granting you rights. Federal law always wins.
>
> Disclaimers are bad for two reasons. First, they're powerless. Just because Acme Corp. attaches a disclaimer doesn't mean they've absolved themselves of responsibility for the actions of their employees. Second, they're insulting to the employees. It's a big red flag saying, "We, Acme Corp., hire clowns we don't trust, and THIS person may be one of them!"

Dear sirs, this is off-topic at best. Pls. discontinue this thread.

regards
Claus

"Craig A. James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> writes:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>> I have no idea if that's legally binding or not, but I've talked to a few
>> associates who have some experience in law, and they all argue that email
>> disclaimers probably aren't legally binding anyway -- so the result is
>> undefined.

> No, it's not legally binding. Agreements are only binding if both
> parties agree, and someone sending you email has not consented to your
> statement.

To take this back to the PG problem: it's probably true that we can
ignore disclaimers as far as receiving, redistributing, and archiving
mail list submissions goes. On the other hand, accepting a patch is
another matter.

regards, tom lane

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Craig A. James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> writes:
> > Bill Moran wrote:
> >> I have no idea if that's legally binding or not, but I've talked to a few
> >> associates who have some experience in law, and they all argue that email
> >> disclaimers probably aren't legally binding anyway -- so the result is
> >> undefined.
>
> > No, it's not legally binding. Agreements are only binding if both
> > parties agree, and someone sending you email has not consented to your
> > statement.
>
> To take this back to the PG problem: it's probably true that we can
> ignore disclaimers as far as receiving, redistributing, and archiving
> mail list submissions goes. On the other hand, accepting a patch is
> another matter.

A published policy on patch submission making them fit whatever legal
model is desired would avoid any and all legal issues related to legalease
included with a submission. The would-be patcher's action of submission
can also count as acknowledgement of the actual agreement - your
agreement - if you've got the policy unambiguously and prominently
displayed...

HTH,
RT

--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com, http://ScienceTools.com/