|From:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 09/11/2011 02:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In particular, I think that discovering a safe dump order for a selected
> set of objects is a pretty key portion of pg_dump's functionality.
> Do we really want to assume that that needn't be included in a
> hypothetical library?
Maybe. Who else would need it?
> Other issues include:
> * pg_dump's habit of assuming that the SQL is being generated to work
> with a current server as target, even when dumping from a much older
> server. It's not clear to me that other clients for a library would
> want that behavior ... but catering to multiple output versions would
> kick the complexity up by an order of magnitude.
Good point. Maybe what we need to think about instead is adding some
backend functions to do the sort of things I want. That would avoid
version issues and have the advantage that it would be available to all
clients, as well as avoiding possible performance issues you mention.
|Next Message||Alexander Korotkov||2011-09-11 19:30:11||Double sorting split patch|
|Previous Message||Andrew Dunstan||2011-09-11 18:58:57||psql additions|