Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump, pg_dumpall and data durability
Date: 2017-03-01 17:26:42
Message-ID: bbd19267-5a7b-a49e-e24a-e26aca103c61@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/22/17 11:02 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
>>>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>>> Meh. I forgot docs and --help output updates.
>>>>
>>>> Looks good, except that you left the "N" option in the getopt_long
>>>> call for pg_dumpall. I fixed that in the attached patch.
>>>
>>> No, v5 has removed it, but it does not matter much now...
>>>
>>>> I'll mark the patch "ready for committer".
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> Moved to CF 2017-01.
>
> Moved to CF 2017-03 with the same status, ready for committer. Perhaps
> there is some interest in this feature? v5 of the patch still applies,
> with a couple of hunks, so v6 is attached.

This patch is in need of a committer. Any takers?

I didn't see a lot of enthusiasm from committers on the thread so if
nobody picks it up by the end of the CF I'm going to mark the patch RWF.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2017-03-01 17:30:32 Re: log_autovacuum_min_duration doesn't log VACUUMs
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-01 17:24:19 Re: objsubid vs subobjid