On 11/19/2012 09:07 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
>>>> pg_dump | pg_restore
>>>> pg_export | psql
>>> While I agree that this idea - when implemented - would be nicer in
>>> practically every way, I'm not sure I want to volunteer to do all the
>>> necessary work.
>> What I think needs to happen now is a commiter's buy in that we want to
>> get there at some point and that your current patch is not painting us
>> into any corner now. So that we can accept it and have a documented path
> Just stumbled accross this message while reading some older threads
> about the current topic:
> Where Robert Treat said:
>> I've both enjoyed reading this thread and seeing this wheel reinvented
>> yet again, and wholeheartedly +1 the idea of building this directly
>> into pg_dump. (The only thing better would be to make everything thing
>> sql callable, but that's a problem for another day).
> I know Andrew has been working on his "Retail DDL" project which is
> basically a bunch of server-side functions that spits out SQL object
> definitions. Andrew, were you able to make progress on that project?
> On the other hand, pg_dump -Fs still is something I would like to have
> as a complement to Andrew's facility.
No, sorry, it's on hold - I'm finding trouble finding time to work on it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Karl O. Pinc||Date: 2012-11-19 15:17:19|
|Subject: Re: gset updated patch|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-11-19 15:05:56|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be
changed via SQL|