| From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd) |
| Date: | 2000-04-06 16:17:49 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.96.1000406180256.474B-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> If it runs as a separate utility, there's no way for it to guarantee
> a dump consistent with the previous run of pg_dump, right?
If you dump your tables via pg_dump and promptly you dump LO via
pg_dumplo, IMHO you not have problem with DB consistency. In table-dump
is in columns OID which use LO-dump index.
> So wouldn't it be better to fold pg_dumplo into pg_dump?
Yes. If I good remember, anyone plan rewrite pg_dump. Or not? If not, I can
rewrite it, because I very need good backup tools (I have important large
databases (with LO too)).
Karel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-04-06 16:19:09 | Re: 7.1 items |
| Previous Message | Theo Kramer | 2000-04-06 16:09:02 | Re: 7.1 items |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-04-06 17:33:11 | Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd) |
| Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-04-06 14:20:19 | Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd) |