Re: -f <output file> option for pg_dumpall

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: -f <output file> option for pg_dumpall
Date: 2007-01-11 09:13:50
Message-ID: 45A5FFCE.1000503@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Possibly, to merge the two programs. I'm intending to put some time into
the append and seperating globals items, but I don't think I have the
time to merge the apps given Tom's concerns and some further investigation.

Regards, Dave.

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is there a TODO here?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>>> I don't object to it in principle, but I think a bit more thought is
>>>> needed as to what's the goal. A stupid "append" option would be enough
>>>> for pg_dumpall's current capabilities (ie, text output only) --- but is
>>>> it reasonable to consider generalizing -Fc and -Ft modes to deal with
>>>> multiple databases, and if so how would that need to change pg_dump's
>>>> API? (I'm not at all sure this is feasible, but let's think about it
>>>> before plastering warts onto pg_dump, not after.)
>>> Hmm, OK. I'll need to have a good look at the code before I can even
>>> think about commenting on that, which will have to wait until after I've
>>> finished bundling releases.
>> And having done so, I agree that it's not really feasible without
>> significant effort to allow each archive format to be closed and
>> re-opened between multiple instances of pg_dump and pg_dumpall, as well
>> as to allow them to support multiple databases and global objects
>> (though they can effectively live in the default DB of course) within a
>> single archive. I'm fairly certain it would be easier to merge the two
>> programs as originally suggested, though that does indeed look trickier
>> (and more dangerous) than I originally envisaged.
>>
>> How about adding the append option, but leaving it undocumented. That
>> way if anyone gets the itch to do a full rewrite in the future we
>> haven't necessarily got to continue to support an option we no longer want?
>>
>> Regards, Dave.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Meskes 2007-01-11 09:49:59 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp major release 8.3.0,
Previous Message Joachim Wieland 2007-01-11 08:51:11 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp major release 8.3.0,