Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
>> Gained. Code complexity.
>>
>
> Hardly, patch is very small. I would recognise that as a factor
> otherwise.
>
>
>> What I see is a recipe for inconsistent, un-restorable backups without a
>> user realizing what they have done.
>>
>
> I agree on the backup side, but then who would extract just a portion of
> their data for backup? It would be no backup at all.
>
> If you did use this as part of an incremental backup scheme, then they
> would have to test it (just like any backup method). Incremental backups
> rarely have self-consistency except as part of a greater whole.
>
> As a dev tool it makes sense.
>
>
I think we have yet another case for moving the core bits of pg_dump
into a library that can then be used by lots of clients. Until we do
that we're going to get continual pressure to add extra cases to pg_dump
unrelated to its principal functionality.
cheers
andrew
