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

Re: pg_dump.c

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump.c
Date: 2011-09-11 19:18:13
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/11/2011 02:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In particular, I think that discovering a safe dump order for a selected
> set of objects is a pretty key portion of pg_dump's functionality.
> Do we really want to assume that that needn't be included in a
> hypothetical library?

Maybe. Who else would need it?

> Other issues include:
> * pg_dump's habit of assuming that the SQL is being generated to work
> with a current server as target, even when dumping from a much older
> server.  It's not clear to me that other clients for a library would
> want that behavior ... but catering to multiple output versions would
> kick the complexity up by an order of magnitude.

Good point. Maybe what we need to think about instead is adding some 
backend functions to do the sort of things I want. That would avoid 
version issues and have the advantage that it would be available to all 
clients, as well as avoiding possible performance issues you mention.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2011-09-11 19:30:11
Subject: Double sorting split patch
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-09-11 18:58:57
Subject: psql additions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group