Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid24553.1155932458@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Andrew Dunstan <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:andrew@dunslane.net"><andrew@dunslane.net></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Well, the other issue is how many canned breakup schemes we are going to
support. If this particular one is of sufficiently general usefulness
then I have no objection. But when you can produce it trivially from the
output of "pg_dump -s", the need to hardcode it hardly seems pressing. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
FWIW, I am in favor of providing a way to break up the dump output like
this, I was merely objecting to the vocabulary ;-). We have certainly
seen tons of people burnt by the performance problems inherent in
separate-data-and-schema restores, and splitting the dump into three
parts instead of two seems like it would fix that.
But I also like Alvaro's comment that this should be on the restore side
not so much the dump side. If you do two or three successive pg_dump
runs to make your dump then you run a nontrivial risk of not getting
consistent dumps. My advice to people would be to do *one* full
"pg_dump -Fc" and then extract three scripts out of that.
The question then is whether it's worth providing the extraction
functionality in a more canned, user-friendly form than "here, hack up
the -L output with this perl script". I'd vote yes.
regards, tom lane</pre></blockquote> I greatly appreciate the comments here and am glad that my initial idea
hassupport. This thread highlights to me the difference between the "hey there's a good idea there despite the fact
that'she's obviously not a veteran software developer" culture that the PostgreSQL community has instead of the "he is
obviouslynot a veteran software developer so what on Earth could he have to offer us" responses I've had from various
otheropen source projects.<br /><br /> On a less obsequious note, I agree that pg_dump should be used to dump
everythingin a single run to avoid consistency issues, and the selection of data to be restored should be done with
pg_restore.As this is a feature that I would benefit greatly from, how do I go about ensuring that this idea finds its
wayto the appropriate developer and doesn't get forgotten in the mountain of ideas in the "that'd be nice to have some
day"category?<br /><br /> - Naz<br />
