Re: Pet Peeves? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Pet Peeves?
Date
Msg-id 1233251502.20951.74.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Pet Peeves?  (Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>)
Responses Re: Pet Peeves?  (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
Re: Pet Peeves?  (Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-general
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 17:43 +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > * Letter options in psql, pg_dump[all], pg_restore aren't consistent
> >   and can easily steer you very wrong.  I'm looking at you, -d.
>
> Ah, good one - I keep doing that too. For the record "-d" is usually
> database-name, but for pg_dump it's "dump with inserts". Which is a
> zillion time slower than COPY for restoring.

If we are listing pet peeves :)

Up to 8.4, postgresql didn't accurately represent timestamps because
they are stored as float by default

The fact that there is:

pg_dump
pg_dumpall
pg_restore

At all...

It should be pg_backup and that is it, with a nice -R flag for restore.

The idea that it is "proper" to pipe a backup through psql to restore.

Our date handling as a whole (extract,date_part) is wonky. There have
been more than one blog post on this.

Our lack of partitioning :)

Joshua D. Drake


--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org
   Consulting, Development, Support, Training
   503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
   The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Full backup - pg_dumpall sufficient?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ssl to more than one server