Re: -f

option for pg_dumpall

On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:13:16AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> 
> Neil Conway wrote:
> >On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 14:36 -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> >  
> >>I don't think they need to be integrated any time soon, but if we were
> >>to design pg_dump and pg_dumpall from scratch, it seems more logical to
> >>use a single program
> >>    
> >
> >On thinking about this some more, it might be useful to factor much of
> >pg_dump's logic for reconstructing the state of a database into a shared
> >library. This would make it relatively easy for developers to plug new
> >archive formats into the library (in addition to the present 3 archive
> >formats), or to make use of this functionality in other applications
> >that want to reconstruct the logical state of a database from the
> >content of the system catalogs. We could then provide a client app
> >implemented on top of the library that would provide similar
> >functionality to pg_dump.
> >
> >Moving pg_dump's functionality into the backend has been suggested in
> >the past (and rejected for good reason), but I think this might be a
> >more practical method for making the pg_dump logic more easily reusable.
> >
> >
> >  
> 
> I like this idea. For example, we might usefully map some of this to 
> psql \ commands, without having to replicate the underlying logic.

Don't we already do this with the .psqlrc file?

--elein