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

Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd)

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-04-06 16:19:09
Subject: Re: 7.1 items
Previous:From: Theo KramerDate: 2000-04-06 16:09:02
Subject: Re: 7.1 items

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-04-06 17:33:11
Subject: Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd)
Previous:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-04-06 14:20:19
Subject: Re: pg_dumplo, thanks :) (fwd)

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