On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 15:35, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>> I for myself would be rather annoyed if we started quoting all column
>>> names
>>> in our dumps. This is seriously hampering readability and while it is
>>> already annoying that pg_dump output is slightly different from the
>>> original
>>> DDL used this would make it far worse.
>>
>> It's only been proposed to make it an option, not to shove it down
>> anyone's throat.
>
> that will pretty much defeat the purpose for most use cases i guess becau=
se
> people will dump with the defaults and only discover the problem after the
> fact.
Well, if you dump in custom format, it could be useful to be able to
do this on pg_restore time. Not having followed this thread in detail,
but would that work? That would be a much more useful option...
>> 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. =A0However, 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. =A0It's a huge pain in
>> the neck.
>
> well that's why we recommend to use the new version of pg_dump to dump the
> old cluster if the intention is an upgrade not sure that is any more pain
> than manually hacking the dump...
yeah. There are (supposedly?) a lot of *other* cases where using an
old version of pg_dump won't work. At least we reserve the right for
it to be.
--=20
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
