AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: AW: Backup, restore & pg_dump
Date: 2000-10-16 10:23:56
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633680A7@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > > As a result do people have any objection to changing pg_restore to
> > > pg_undump? Or pg_load?

Also possible would be a name like Oracle
pg_exp and pg_imp for export and import.
(or pg_export and pg_import)

Load and unload is often more tied to data only (no dml).

I agree that the current name pg_restore for its current functionality
is not good and misleading in the light of WAL backup.

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-10-16 12:26:13 AW: AW: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2000-10-16 10:01:58 Re: AW: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN