From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Adding WHERE clause to pg_dump |
Date: | 2008-07-26 11:47:08 |
Message-ID: | 488B0EBC.2030803@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
>> Gained. Code complexity.
>>
>
> Hardly, patch is very small. I would recognise that as a factor
> otherwise.
>
>
>> What I see is a recipe for inconsistent, un-restorable backups without a
>> user realizing what they have done.
>>
>
> I agree on the backup side, but then who would extract just a portion of
> their data for backup? It would be no backup at all.
>
> If you did use this as part of an incremental backup scheme, then they
> would have to test it (just like any backup method). Incremental backups
> rarely have self-consistency except as part of a greater whole.
>
> As a dev tool it makes sense.
>
>
I think we have yet another case for moving the core bits of pg_dump
into a library that can then be used by lots of clients. Until we do
that we're going to get continual pressure to add extra cases to pg_dump
unrelated to its principal functionality.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-26 12:28:13 | Re: Adding WHERE clause to pg_dump |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-26 10:29:17 | Re: Research/Implementation of Nested Loop Join optimization |