On 2010-06-10, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 10/06/10 16:21, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I do agree that the human readability of pg_dump is an asset in many
>>>> situations - I have often dumped out the DDL for particular objects
>>>> just to look at it, for example. However, I emphatically do NOT agree
>>>> that leaving someone with a 500MB dump file (or, for some people on
>>>> this list, a whole heck of a lot larger than that) that has to be
>>>> manually edited to reload is a useful behavior. It's a huge pain in
>>>> the neck.
>>> Much easier to do a schema-only dump, edit that, and dump data separately.
>> That gets you out of the huge-file-to-edit problem, but the performance
>> costs of restoring a separate-data dump are a pretty serious
>> disadvantage. We really should do something about that.
> well that is an argument for providing not only --schema-only and
> --data-only but rather three options one for the table definitions, one
> for the data and one for all the constraints and indexes. So basically
> what pg_dump is currently doing anyway but just exposed as flags.
You can extract those parts from a schema-only (or full) dump using sed
or you can just edit the schema-only dump and insert
in the apropriate spot.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Curtis Stecke||Date: 2010-06-11 16:41:47|
|Subject: BUG #5499: SQL syntax bug|
|Previous:||From: Jasen Betts||Date: 2010-06-11 10:47:13|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5488: pg_dump does not quote column names -> pg_restore
may fail when upgrading|