| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: -f <output file> option for pg_dumpall |
| Date: | 2007-01-11 19:36:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1168544202.5462.7.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 17:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think this will be an exercise in time-wasting, and very possibly
> destabilize *both* tools. pg_dump has never been designed to reconnect
> to a different database; for instance there isn't any code for resetting
> all the internal state that it gathers.
That is merely an implementation issue. The question of whether pg_dump
and pg_dumpall should be separate programs is a question of design,
IMHO.
I don't think they need to be integrated any time soon, but if we were
to design pg_dump and pg_dumpall from scratch, it seems more logical to
use a single program, and therefore that is the long-term direction I
think we should head in.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Earl | 2007-01-11 19:37:26 | Re: Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-11 19:23:18 | Re: Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |