On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11 October 2012 20:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> I have a quietish few days starting on Saturday, will be looking at this
>>> then. Is it only the Windows aspect that needs reviewing? Are we more or
>>> less happy with the rest?
>>
>> I think the Windows issues were the biggest thing, but I suspect there
>> may be a few other warts as well. It's a lot of code, and it's
>> modifying pg_dump, which is an absolute guarantee that it's built on a
>> foundation made out of pure horse manure.
>
> That may be so, but enough people dependent upon it that now I'm
> wondering whether we should be looking to create a new utility
> altogether, or at least have pg_dump_parallel and pg_dump to avoid any
> screw ups with people's backups/restores.
Well, I think pg_dump may well need a full rewrite to be anything like
sane. But I'm not too keen about forking it as part of adding
parallel dump. I think we can sanely hack this patch into what's
there now. It's liable to be a bit hard to verify, but in the long
run having two copies of the code is going to be a huge maintenance
headache, so we should avoid that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
