On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 03:43:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 02:50:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> In most cases our policy has been that pg_dumpall should accept and pass
> >> through any pg_dump option for which it's sensible to do so. I did not
> >> make that happen but it seems it'd be a reasonable follow-on patch.
> > I'll remember that next time.
> Er .. actually that was a direct request for you to do it.
Attached is a the followon patch for pg_dumpall and docs to match pg_dump.
On a second topic, is anyone working on a parallel dump/load? I'd be
interested in helping.
David Gould daveg(at)sonic(dot)net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2008-07-22 06:33:21|
|Subject: Re: [WIP] collation support revisited (phase 1)|
|Previous:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2008-07-22 04:31:26|
|Subject: Re: Concurrent VACUUM and ANALYZE|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-07-22 06:35:30|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-07-21 23:19:46|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |