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

Re: pg_dump --split patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump --split patch
Date: 2010-12-29 15:07:30
Message-ID: 9975.1293635250@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> AFAIK, that applies to parallel dumps of data (may help in --schema-only
>> dumps too), and what you are trying is for schema.

> Right, but one of the things it does is break the dump in to parts,
> and put them in a directory/file organization.

> Both are doing it for different reasons, but doing pretty much the
> same thing.  But can the layout/organization of Joachim's patch can be
> made "human friendly" in the vein of Joel's vision?

I think they're fundamentally different things, because the previously
proposed patch is an extension of the machine-readable archive format,
and has to remain so because of the expectation that people will want
to use parallel restore with it.  Joel is arguing for a split-up of
the text dump format.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-12-29 15:12:38
Subject: Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-12-29 14:59:32
Subject: Re: small table left outer join big table

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