From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Lee Wu <Lwu(at)mxlogic(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump, pg_restore, insert vs copy |
Date: | 2005-03-24 16:44:33 |
Message-ID: | 20050324164433.GA8068@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:52:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Lee Wu" <Lwu(at)mxlogic(dot)com> writes:
> > When I use pg_dump to back up the whole database and then pg_restore an
> > individual table,
> > pg_restore uses COPY. Great.
> > When I use pg_dump to back up an individual table and pg_restore it,
> > pg_restore uses INSERT.
>
> Not for me...
>
> That decision is fixed at pg_dump time; it's not possible for pg_restore
> to change it, because the data is already that way (or not) in the dump
> file. Maybe you misinterpreted what you saw?
Is there any reason why we don't use a binary storage in custom format
dumps? I mean, we could open a binary cursor and write the results to
the file, and read it back at restore time. This is just handwaving of
course.
I guess the reason is cross-version portability?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"World domination is proceeding according to plan" (Andrew Morton)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-24 16:51:08 | Re: pg_dump, pg_restore, insert vs copy |
Previous Message | Lee Wu | 2005-03-24 16:35:43 | Re: pg_dump, pg_restore, insert vs copy |