Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 10/06/10 16:21, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I do agree that the human readability of pg_dump is an asset in many
>>> situations - I have often dumped out the DDL for particular objects
>>> just to look at it, for example. However, I emphatically do NOT agree
>>> that leaving someone with a 500MB dump file (or, for some people on
>>> this list, a whole heck of a lot larger than that) that has to be
>>> manually edited to reload is a useful behavior. It's a huge pain in
>>> the neck.
>
>> Much easier to do a schema-only dump, edit that, and dump data separately.
>
> That gets you out of the huge-file-to-edit problem, but the performance
> costs of restoring a separate-data dump are a pretty serious
> disadvantage. We really should do something about that.
well that is an argument for providing not only --schema-only and
--data-only but rather three options one for the table definitions, one
for the data and one for all the constraints and indexes. So basically
what pg_dump is currently doing anyway but just exposed as flags.
Stefan
