From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Mention pg_dump version portability |
Date: | 2006-05-16 23:18:48 |
Message-ID: | 13191.1147821528@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> But shouldn't the custom format deal better with version changes, or
> does the format of custom change just as often?
It's completely orthogonal, because the SQL involved is just the same.
One of the tests I periodically run is to compare
pg_dump >foo
pg_dump -Fc | pg_restore >bar
and make sure the outputs are word-for-word the same.
What custom or tar format buys you is the flexibility of extracting
different subsets of the dump after-the-fact, using pg_restore's
switches. Of course you can do that with a text editor on a plain
dump, if the dump's not too large for your editor to handle ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-17 15:41:20 | Re: Mention pg_dump version portability |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-16 18:46:33 | Re: Mention pg_dump version portability |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Wheeler | 2006-05-16 23:20:56 | PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-16 22:48:33 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |