Re: pg_get_tabledef

I mean as a shared library - a .so for Unix (or whatever the flavor of 
unix uses instead) or a DLL on WIndows. And no, it would not be in 
contrib - as I mentioned in another thread yesterday I want to propose 
that contrib disappear.

Certainly pg_dump would use the library, and retain all the file 
handling processing it does now. But we could also link it into psql, 
for example, and expose the results via \ commands.

If you want to have a go at that you'll probably make lots of people 
very happy.

cheers

andrew


Usama Munir wrote:
> When you say pgdump library, do you mean taking all catalog querying 
> functionality into a contrib like module , exposed as  functions and 
> then have a simple pgdump executable which calls those functions to 
> dump to a file, because you would still need a pgdump executable i 
> suppose for people to be able to backup their stuff. Is my 
> understanding somewhere near actual idea or i am way off here?
>
>
> Are there any discussions on this topic which could give me a little 
> more idea? because i would definitely like to take a shot at this.
>
> Regards,
> Usama Munir
> EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
>
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Usama Munir wrote:
>>> I think using pg_dump in some cases is a good option , but not all 
>>> the time, having a function makes it much cleaner to use
>>
>> That's why having a shared pgdump library as has been previously 
>> mentioned is by far the best solution.
>>
>> We have discussed this before, and factoring out this functionality 
>> into a shared lib is what needs to be done. I'm not convinced it is 
>> as much work as Tom suggests, but it is certainly a non-trivial task.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> andrew
>