Re: pg_dump --split patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pg_dump --split patch
Date
Msg-id 4D1A942A.20302@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump --split patch  (Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump --split patch  (Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com>)
Re: pg_dump --split patch  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 12/28/2010 08:18 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> 2010/12/29 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>>
>
>
>     If you've solved the deterministic-ordering problem, then this entire
>     patch is quite useless.  You can just run a normal dump and diff it.
>
>
> No, that's only half true.
>
> Diff will do a good job minimizing the "size" of the diff output, yes, 
> but such a diff is still quite useless if you want to quickly grasp 
> the context of the change.
>
> If you have a hundreds of functions, just looking at the changed 
> source code is not enough to figure out which functions were modified, 
> unless you have the brain power to memorize every single line of code 
> and are able to figure out the function name just by looking at the 
> old and new line of codes.
>
>

try:
 diff -F '^CREATE' ...

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joel Jacobson
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump --split patch
Next
From: Karl Lehenbauer
Date:
Subject: Re: Revised patches to add table function support to PL/Tcl (TODO item)