At 10:28 PM 6/14/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>As far as pg_log, you certainly would not expect to get any information
>back from the time of the backup table to current, so the current pg_log
>would be just fine.
In reality, very few people are going to be interested in restoring
a table in a way that breaks referential integrity and other
normal assumptions about what exists in the database. The reality
is that most people are going to engage in a little time travel
to a past, consistent backup rather than do as you suggest.
This is going to be more and more true as Postgres gains more and
more acceptance in (no offense intended) the real world.
>Right now, we use 'ps' with args to display backend information, and ls
>-l to show disk information. We are going to lose that here.
Dependence on "ls -l" is, IMO, a very weak argument.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
