| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Schema version management |
| Date: | 2012-07-12 06:35:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAASwCXeY1sNVyzZO_An5TWbyjtLB=KV-gS-TYgtPuXYeWxFeGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> After extensive off-list discussion with Joel it became clear that
> per-object dumping ability really belongs in pg_restore.
>
The only benefit I could see in putting it in pg_restore is you would then
be able to do a --split on already existing historical dumps.
On the other hand, it would require you to use both pg_dump and pg_restore,
instead of only pg_dump, which makes it a bit less user-friendly.
I haven't looked at how it could be implemented in pg_restore, if its even
just
a little more complex, it's probably better to let pg_dump handle the task.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2012-07-12 06:50:31 | Re: Schema version management |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-07-12 06:29:44 | Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree |