Re: pg_dump: bug? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Don Baccus
Subject Re: pg_dump: bug?
Date
Msg-id 3C5B83DA.5080408@pacifier.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_dump: bug?  (Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes:
> 
>>Now, is this a bug?
>>
> 
> Good question.  I don't think this is the only example of a
> non-self-consistent situation that could arise after a series of
> ALTER commands; I'm not sure that we can or should try to solve
> every one.


Ummm...at some point in time, PG will need to be able to dump and 
recreate a database no matter what the history.

No matter whether or not "non-self-consistent situations" occur.  PG 
needs to be able to snapshot and restore current state, whether or not 
it is a horror.

Or else you might as well state that, like MySQL, the only thing to do 
is to knock down the database, tar files, and hope no one is interested 
in 24x7 uptime.

When my clients ask about Oracle vs. PG I like to say "PG".  They still 
mostly say "Oracle" and I oblige.

-- 
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump: bug?
Next
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump: bug?