Re: -f <output file> option for pg_dumpall

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>>> I think forking a separate
>>> pg_dump for each database is a perfectly fine arrangement, and should be
>>> left alone.
>
>> Hmm, would you be happy with my original proposal to add an append option to pg_dump?
>
> I don't object to it in principle, but I think a bit more thought is
> needed as to what's the goal. A stupid "append" option would be enough
> for pg_dumpall's current capabilities (ie, text output only) --- but is
> it reasonable to consider generalizing -Fc and -Ft modes to deal with
> multiple databases, and if so how would that need to change pg_dump's
> API? (I'm not at all sure this is feasible, but let's think about it
> before plastering warts onto pg_dump, not after.)

Hmm, OK. I'll need to have a good look at the code before I can even
think about commenting on that, which will have to wait until after I've
finished bundling releases.

Regards, Dave