Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> writes:
>> That latter occurred recently to me, a customer would like to dump large
>> tables (approx. 12G in size) with pg_dump, but he was annoyed about the
>> performance. Using COPY BINARY reduced the time (unsurprisingly) to a
>> fraction (from 12 minutes to 3 minutes).
>
> Seems like the right response might be some micro-optimization effort on
> byteaout.

Still, apart from lack of interest from developpers and/or resources, is
there some reason we don't have a pg_dump --binary option?

DBA would have to make sure his exports are usable, but when the routine
pg_dump backup is mainly there to be able to restore on the same machine
in case of unwanted event (DELETE bug, malicious TRUNCATE, you name it),
having a faster dump/restore even if local only would be of interest.

Regards,
--
dim