On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 20:26 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:46 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:33 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Adding this feature gives a very fast capability to create sample
> > > databases, or incremental backups for many cases.
> >
> > Not sure I buy this argument. I am all for usability and I would be the
> > first to shout about the general ridiculousness of pg_dump/all/restore
> > but in this case I think Tom is right. This feature could easily be done
> > in a script without harassing pg_dump.
>
> You can do it, yes. But it takes a lot longer. If the time to implement
> was similar, then I would immediately agree "feature available already".
>
> pg_dump is not "harassed" by this. What is lost by adding this feature?
Gained. Code complexity. Right now pg_dump does, copy. You are
introducing a whole other level of complexity by adding WHERE clause
capability. Secondly I don't think it would actually add anything but
complexity to the user.
How do we deal with this?
pg_dump -w "last_update_timestamp < ..." -t 'table*'
What I see is a recipe for inconsistent, un-restorable backups without a
user realizing what they have done. The only way to deal with the above
is:
1. Wildcards aren't allowed if you have -w
2. You dump everything, if the WHERE clause isn't relevant you just dump
the whole table
I don't like either.
I do see utility if you know what you are doing but I think it makes
more sense to have it outside of pg_dump.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
