Re: -f
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: -f |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45A011E5.6060909@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: -f (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: -f
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > "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.) Hmm, OK. I'll need to have a good look at the code before I can even think about commenting on that, which will have to wait until after I've finished bundling releases. Regards, Dave
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: