| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-29 17:53:20 | Re: ssl to more than one server |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-29 17:47:55 | Re: Full backup - pg_dumpall sufficient? |