Re: -f option for pg_dumpall - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: -f option for pg_dumpall
Date
Msg-id 10168.1168037557@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: -f option for pg_dumpall  (Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: -f option for pg_dumpall  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
> Hmm, well I have no interest in the latter at present, but assuming the 
> powers that be will allow me some time to do so, I will look at merging 
> pg_dump and pg_dumpall as that seems to be the way people want to go. 

I think this will be an exercise in time-wasting, and very possibly
destabilize *both* tools.  pg_dump has never been designed to reconnect
to a different database; for instance there isn't any code for resetting
all the internal state that it gathers.  I think forking a separate
pg_dump for each database is a perfectly fine arrangement, and should be
left alone.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: -f option for pg_dumpall
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Stamp major release 8.3.0, and