| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2003-12-12 20:18:24 |
| Message-ID: | 21614.1071260304@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> re Windows: pipes, yes, hard links, no (and no sane symlinks either) -
> also of course no (sane) shell - is this going to be a script or a C
> program?
C, certainly.
> Maybe use an option which you would disable on Windows to copy the files
> instead of hardlinking them. Yes it would take lots more time and space,
> but copying raw files would surely still be a lot faster than loading
> the dump.
Yeah, that's what we'll have to do if there's no hard-link capability.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-12-12 20:19:40 | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Randolf Richardson | 2003-12-12 19:59:00 | Re: What's the difference between int2 and int16? |