Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Date: 2008-07-21 15:38:04
Message-ID: 14137.1216654684@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe invert the logic?
>> --omit-pre-data
>> --omit-data
>> --omit-post-data

> Please, no. Negative logic seems likely to cause endless confusion.

I think it might actually be less confusing, because with this approach,
each switch has an identifiable default (no) and setting it doesn't
cause side-effects on settings of other switches. The interactions of
the switches as Simon presents 'em seem less than obvious.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Cédric Villemain 2008-07-21 16:07:24 Re: Default of max_stack_depth and getrlimit
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-21 15:27:14 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Adjust things so that the query_string of a cached plan and the

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-07-21 19:19:25 Re: page macros cleanup (ver 04)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-07-21 15:28:30 Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM?