Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Then after you recover from your head exploding you start devising some
>> sort of sane API ...
>>
>
> That's the hard part. There is no percentage in having a library if
> it doesn't do anything significantly different from what you could
> accomplish via
> system("pg_dump ...switches....");
>
> What is it you hope to accomplish by having a library, exactly?
> (And don't say "more control over the dump process".
Some more progress feedback would be really nice.
> pg_dump is already
> on the hairy edge of maintainability; we do *not* need to try to deal
> with making it still function correctly after an application programmer
> makes some random intervention in the process.)
>
Agreed. The only sane approach seems to have a single dump function call
(that takes a set of parameters as prepared by command line scanning)
and a set of callbacks that enable api users to do sensible stuff at
different stages of the backup process.
Regards,
Andreas
