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

Re: pgdump

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak(at)officenet(dot)no>,Enrico <scotty(at)linuxtime(dot)it>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgdump
Date: 2005-01-17 05:06:25
Message-ID: 200501170506.j0H56PM26901@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 23:42 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I don't remember this patch.
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-07/msg00331.php
> 
> > How is it related to the other pg_dump
> > patches in the 8.1 pathces queue?
> 
> I missed the July '04 discussion about the other patches for improving
> -t behavior. AFAIK the patches are unrelated.
> 
> Something like the design elaborated here:
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-07/msg00374.php
> 
> looks good to me, and would be preferrable to Andreas' patch IMHO.
> Unless I'm missing something, I don't see a patch from David Skoll in
> that thread that actually implements the above behavior. I'd be happy to
> implement Tom's suggested design for 8.1 unless someone has already
> beaten me to it.

There were actually competing pg_dump -n patches in July.  I think I
just kept the last one posted.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

  • Re: pgdump at 2005-01-17 04:59:50 from Neil Conway

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-01-17 05:08:37
Subject: Time to branch for 8.1?
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-17 04:59:50
Subject: Re: pgdump

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