From: | Josh Williams <joshwilliams(at)ij(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ordered pg_dump |
Date: | 2008-11-11 05:01:17 |
Message-ID: | 1226379677.19602.48.camel@godzilla.local.scalefeather.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 17:05 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Is there any interest in an optional mode for pg_dump to order the
> output so that it's easier to use diff?
>
> I don't think it would make the output 100% deterministic, but it would
> make it easier to at least compare the data for small databases.
That'd be cool. I'd done some poking around on the topic a little while
back. The goal was to make the output more predictable so that backups
would be more efficient, specifically with a product that does binary
diffs of some sort.
I may still have some notes somewhere if you're interested. But I
believe the idea was to use COPY with a SELECT statement. The
non-trivial part was to figure out a proper ordering to use.
Or did you plan on combining it with -t, where you could then specify
the ordering for each table?
> I think this has been brought up before, but I couldn't find the thread,
> so I don't know what conclusion was reached.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
(... Plus, you potentially get a free CLUSTER on a reload.)
- Josh Williams
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Teslenko | 2008-11-11 07:52:17 | Re: LIKE, "=" and fixed-width character fields |
Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2008-11-11 04:19:33 | Re: how to best resync serial columns |