Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/contrib/pg_dumpaccounts (Makefile README pg_dumpaccounts.sh)

Well, here in relatively minor form is the First Example of a Great
Bridge Priority (which Tom, Bruce, and Jan have all predicted would
come... ;-)

Our feeling is that DBAs will want to have the ability to backup user
and group info, which you currently can't do with pg_dump. You *can* do
it with pg_dumpall - but only if you dump every database you've got at
the same time. Picture a professional environment where you might have
many different databases running 24/7 - and doing a pg_dumpall across
all of them at once just isn't practical. Most DBAs would prefer to
stagger their regular backups in such an environment, one database at a
time. Indeed, those backups are often on fixed schedules, at different
times, for real business reasons. And if you do that, you can't backup
the aforementioned system catalogs.

That's what this pg_dumpaccounts is designed to do. As you've seen,
it's very simple - it does the same COPY stuff that pg_dumpall does
before calling pg_dump, just without the pg_dump. It's an inelegant
solution, and shame on us for not catching the problem sooner. But it
*is* a problem, albeit perhaps one that current PostgreSQL users haven't
run into yet. We're concerned that people might have a false sense of
security with pg_dump - that they might think if they backup one
database, they're able to do a full restore. They're not. And like I
said, there are situations when pg_dumpall isn't the appropriate solution.

We recognize this is a temporary hack - and fully expect it to go away
in 7.1 We actually think that the final solution might be more
appropriate in pg_dump itself than pg_dumpall, but that's obviously a
much more breakable proposition (hence the separate utility).

I understand everyone's hesitation about adding a new utility this late
in the process - and we're happy to be overruled on that (even if it's a
discrete piece of code that wouldn't affect anything else...) I'm not
wild about putting it in /contrib, but if that's what everyone wants to
do, ok.

Have we adequately explained the need for this? Or do people think it's
not necessary?

If it *is* necessary (or at least worthwhile), is it the consensus of
the -hackers community that it go in /contrib?

Thanks,
Ned

Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>> I think the issue is that we don't want to risk breaking pg_dumpall in a
>> minor release.
>
> No we don't, but I agree with Peter that pg_dumpall is the place for
> this feature in the long run. A separate contrib script is not going
> to get maintained.
>
> What I want to know is why we are adding features at all in a minor
> release. Especially 24 or so hours before release, when there is
> certainly no time for any testing worthy of the name. Contrib or no
> contrib, I think this is a bad idea and a bad precedent.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

--
----------------------------------------------------
Ned Lilly e: ned(at)greatbridge(dot)com
Vice President w: www.greatbridge.com
Evangelism / Hacker Relations v: 757.233.5523
Great Bridge, LLC f: 757.233.5555