| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 12:28:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1217075293.3894.1134.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 07:47 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > As a dev tool it makes sense.
> >
> I think we have yet another case for moving the core bits of pg_dump
> into a library that can then be used by lots of clients. Until we do
> that we're going to get continual pressure to add extra cases to pg_dump
> unrelated to its principal functionality.
That's a good idea and I support that.
I'm slightly suprised at the "principal functionality" bit. In a world
where PITR exists the role and importance of pg_dump has waned
considerably. What *is* its principal function? Does it have just one?
One man's dev system is another man's data warehouse, or another man's
backup. The meaning of a dump is defined by the user making the data
dump, not the tool used.
Is this one option sufficient to make us invent pg_make_dev_database?
(With all pg_dump options, plus -w). If that's what we need, fine by me.
I'm always interested in the capability not the structure/naming.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-26 13:08:33 | Re: Adding WHERE clause to pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-26 11:47:08 | Re: Adding WHERE clause to pg_dump |