From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump additional options for performance |
Date: | 2008-07-21 15:19:40 |
Message-ID: | 4884A90C.1030003@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>
>> I also suggested having three options
>> --want-pre-schema
>> --want-data
>> --want-post-schema
>> so we could ask for any or all parts in the one dump. --data-only and
>> --schema-only are negative options so don't allow this.
>> (I don't like those names either, just thinking about capabilities)
>>
>
> Maybe invert the logic?
>
> --omit-pre-data
> --omit-data
> --omit-post-data
>
> Not wedded to these either, just tossing out an idea...
>
>
>
Please, no. Negative logic seems likely to cause endless confusion.
I'd even be happier with --schema-part-1 and --schema-part-2 if we can't
find some more expressive way of designating them.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-07-21 15:23:39 | Re: Default of max_stack_depth and getrlimit |
Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2008-07-21 15:09:28 | Re: overlaps performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-07-21 15:28:30 | Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-07-21 14:41:25 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0721 |