| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding WHERE clause to pg_dump |
| Date: | 2008-07-26 09:35:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1217064956.3894.1115.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Gained. Code complexity.
Hardly, patch is very small. I would recognise that as a factor
otherwise.
> What I see is a recipe for inconsistent, un-restorable backups without a
> user realizing what they have done.
I agree on the backup side, but then who would extract just a portion of
their data for backup? It would be no backup at all.
If you did use this as part of an incremental backup scheme, then they
would have to test it (just like any backup method). Incremental backups
rarely have self-consistency except as part of a greater whole.
As a dev tool it makes sense.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-26 10:29:17 | Re: Research/Implementation of Nested Loop Join optimization |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-07-26 09:09:15 | Re: Transaction-controlled robustness for replication |