On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I failed to parse his proposal. It's helpful if you elaborate it.
>>
>
> As per mail [1], it seems the proposal is not to use .tar for -Z 0.
I was thinking that the proposal is "output uncompressed tar data,
and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file name" part. So, if -Z 0 is
specified with tar format, .gz should not be added as a file extension.
> Now here actually we are on the fence, one can argue that if user
> doesn't want compression, he or she can use -F p (plain format).
> OTOH, without compression getting the backup as a single .tar file
> makes it simple to manage.
Right now we are providing both methods, plain and tar formats
(without compression, i.e., neither -z nor -Z options are specified).
> I think there is some value in providing
> .tar for -Z 0,
I was thinking that "-Ft -Z0" is something like an alias of "-Ft".
That is, the backup is taken in uncompressed tar format.
> however in that case how should we define usage of -F p
> -Z 0? Shall we say with plain format -Z 0 gets ignored or throw error
> or do something else? If first, then I think it is better to mention
> the same in docs.
ISTM that it's better to ignore that case, like pg_dump -Ft -Z0
doesn't throw an error.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao