Re: [GSOC] questions about idea "rewrite pg_dump as library"

Hello, Tom.

You wrote:

TL> Pavel Golub <pavel@microolap.com> writes:
>> From my point of view the new library should export only two
>> functions:

>> 1. The execution function:

>> ExecStatusType PGdumpdbParams(const char * const *keywords,
>>                  const char * const *values);

TL> No, this is exactly *wrong*.  You might as well not bother to refactor,
TL> if the only API the library presents is exactly equivalent to what you
TL> could get with system("pg_dump ...").

Well, yes. You're absolutely right. But should this be a starting
point?

TL> I don't know what the right answer is, but this isn't it.  Most people
TL> who are interested in this topic are interested because they want to get
TL> output that is different from anything pg_dump would produce on its own,
TL> for instance applying a more complex object-selection rule than anything
TL> pg_dump offers.  Right now, the only way they can do that is lobby to
TL> add new switch options to pg_dump.  With a change like this, it'd still
TL> be the case that they can't get what they want except by adding new
TL> switch options to pg_dump.  I don't see any advantage gained.

TL>                         regards, tom lane



-- 
With best wishes,Pavel                          mailto:pavel@gf.microolap.com