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

Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Date: 2008-07-21 15:19:40
Message-ID: 4884A90C.1030003@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>   
>> I also suggested having three options
>> --want-pre-schema
>> --want-data
>> --want-post-schema
>> so we could ask for any or all parts in the one dump. --data-only and
>> --schema-only are negative options so don't allow this.
>> (I don't like those names either, just thinking about capabilities)
>>     
>
> Maybe invert the logic?
>
> 	--omit-pre-data
> 	--omit-data
> 	--omit-post-data
>
> Not wedded to these either, just tossing out an idea...
>
> 			
>   

Please, no. Negative logic seems likely to cause endless confusion.

I'd even be happier with --schema-part-1 and --schema-part-2 if we can't 
find some more expressive way of designating them.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-07-21 15:23:39
Subject: Re: Default of max_stack_depth and getrlimit
Previous:From: Grzegorz JaƛkiewiczDate: 2008-07-21 15:09:28
Subject: Re: overlaps performance

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-07-21 15:28:30
Subject: Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM?
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-07-21 14:41:25
Subject: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0721

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