| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
| Date: | 2008-02-11 16:51:07 |
| Message-ID: | 2816.1202748667@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I think this is pretty unwieldy.
I agree. Since any multiple-output-file case can't usefully use stdout,
I think we should combine the switches and just have one switch that
says both that you want separated output and what the target filename
is. Thus something like
--pre-schema-file = foo
--data-file = bar
--post-schema-file = baz
where specifying any of these suppresses the "normal" output to stdout.
So, if you give just a subset of them, you get just subset output.
With this design, --schema-only, --data-only, and --file are obsolete,
and we should probably throw an error if any of them are used in
combination with these switches.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-02-11 17:11:00 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-02-11 15:50:11 | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |