Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Pet Peeves?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pet Peeves?
Date: 2009-01-29 17:51:42
Message-ID: 1233251502.20951.74.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 17:43 +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > * Letter options in psql, pg_dump[all], pg_restore aren't consistent
> >   and can easily steer you very wrong.  I'm looking at you, -d.
> 
> Ah, good one - I keep doing that too. For the record "-d" is usually
> database-name, but for pg_dump it's "dump with inserts". Which is a
> zillion time slower than COPY for restoring.

If we are listing pet peeves :)

Up to 8.4, postgresql didn't accurately represent timestamps because
they are stored as float by default

The fact that there is:

pg_dump
pg_dumpall
pg_restore

At all...

It should be pg_backup and that is it, with a nice -R flag for restore.

The idea that it is "proper" to pipe a backup through psql to restore.

Our date handling as a whole (extract,date_part) is wonky. There have
been more than one blog post on this.

Our lack of partitioning :)

Joshua D. Drake


-- 
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
   Consulting, Development, Support, Training
   503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
   The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-01-29 17:53:20
Subject: Re: ssl to more than one server
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-01-29 17:47:55
Subject: Re: Full backup - pg_dumpall sufficient?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group