| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |
| Date: | 2006-05-31 19:58:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20060531195812.GB12167@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> >As with "in-place upgrades,"[1] the compelling use case is being short
> >on disk space. For somebody with a multi-TB (or whatever figure
> >sounds big this week) PostgreSQL database, it may be impossible to get
> >space for twice or more that. Giving people the option to stream
> >COPYs through a pipe would alleviate a lot of pain.
>
> But why is that hugely better than piping psql output to gzip?
psql output has already travelled over the network.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-05-31 19:58:49 | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2006-05-31 19:55:17 | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |