Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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