Re: pg_dump.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pg_dump.c
Date
Msg-id 4E6D0975.1010804@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump.c  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 09/11/2011 02:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In particular, I think that discovering a safe dump order for a selected
> set of objects is a pretty key portion of pg_dump's functionality.
> Do we really want to assume that that needn't be included in a
> hypothetical library?

Maybe. Who else would need it?


> Other issues include:
>
> * pg_dump's habit of assuming that the SQL is being generated to work
> with a current server as target, even when dumping from a much older
> server.  It's not clear to me that other clients for a library would
> want that behavior ... but catering to multiple output versions would
> kick the complexity up by an order of magnitude.

Good point. Maybe what we need to think about instead is adding some 
backend functions to do the sort of things I want. That would avoid 
version issues and have the advantage that it would be available to all 
clients, as well as avoiding possible performance issues you mention.



cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: psql additions
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Double sorting split patch