Re: Mention pg_dump version portability

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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