Am 07.11.2013 19:08, schrieb Joshua D. Drake:>
> On 11/07/2013 10:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> If we wanted to change the defaults, I think it would be easier to
>> create a separate bin name (e.g. pg_backup) than to change the existing
>> parameters for pg_dump.
>
> I am not opposed to that. Allow pg_dump to be what it is, and create a
> pg_backup?
>
> JD
I would definitely agree to having "one" backup utility and making -Fc
the default for SQL dumps. One could even argue if the functionality of
pg_basebackup should be part of that too. But I would be fine with
having two distinct utilities (one for file level backups and one for
logical/SQL level backups), too.
Btw, how hard would it be, to have pg_restore and now also pg_dump run
with -j option do some ordering of work by size of e.g. the tables? E.g.
if you run with -j4 it would make sense to start working on the largest
tables (and it's indexes) first and continue by descending in t´size to
keep all available "slots" filled as good as possible. Just at though.
Jan
