Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's exactly it. �I can think of some possible uses for
>> splitting up pg_dump output, but frankly "to ease diff-ing" is not
>> one of them. �For that problem, it's nothing but a crude kluge that
>> only sort-of helps. �If we're to get anywhere on this, we need a
>> better-defined problem statement that everyone can agree is worth
>> solving and is well solved with this particular approach.
> I have to admit I'm a bit unsold on the approach as well. It seems
> like you could write a short Perl script which would transform a text
> format dump into the proposed format pretty easily, and if you did
> that and published the script, then the next poor shmuck who had the
> same problem could either use the script as-is or hack it up to meet
> some slightly different set of requirements. Or maybe you'd be better
> off basing such a script on the custom or tar format instead, in order
> to avoid the problem of misidentifying a line beginning with --- as a
> comment when it's really part of a data item. Or maybe even writing a
> whole "schema diff" tool that would take two custom-format dumps as
> inputs.
> On the other hand, I can certainly think of times when even a pretty
> dumb implementation of this would have saved me some time.
The basic objection that I have to this patch is that it proposes to
institutionalize a pretty dumb implementation. And, as you mentioned,
once it's in there it'll be more or less set in stone because we aren't
going to want to support umpteen variants.
I like the idea of a postprocessing script a lot better --- it seems
like it wouldn't get in the way of people making their own variants.
And as you say it'd likely be pretty trivial to do.
regards, tom lane
