Is there a TODO here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Page wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> And having done so, I agree that it's not really feasible without
> significant effort to allow each archive format to be closed and
> re-opened between multiple instances of pg_dump and pg_dumpall, as well
> as to allow them to support multiple databases and global objects
> (though they can effectively live in the default DB of course) within a
> single archive. I'm fairly certain it would be easier to merge the two
> programs as originally suggested, though that does indeed look trickier
> (and more dangerous) than I originally envisaged.
>
> How about adding the append option, but leaving it undocumented. That
> way if anyone gets the itch to do a full rewrite in the future we
> haven't necessarily got to continue to support an option we no longer want?
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
