Re: -f
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: -f |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3963.1168103803@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: -f ("Dave Page" <dpage@postgresql.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: -f
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Dave Page" <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
>> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> I think forking a separate
>> pg_dump for each database is a perfectly fine arrangement, and should be
>> left alone.
> Hmm, would you be happy with my original proposal to add an append option to pg_dump?
I don't object to it in principle, but I think a bit more thought is
needed as to what's the goal. A stupid "append" option would be enough
for pg_dumpall's current capabilities (ie, text output only) --- but is
it reasonable to consider generalizing -Fc and -Ft modes to deal with
multiple databases, and if so how would that need to change pg_dump's
API? (I'm not at all sure this is feasible, but let's think about it
before plastering warts onto pg_dump, not after.)
> I'd also like to allow separate dumping of roles and tablespaces, and allow a default db to be specified instead of
postgres/template1.
Can't get excited about either, but no objection.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: