On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:46 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:33 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Attached patch implements WHERE clauses for pg_dump. > > > > > > I still have serious reservations about adding such an ugly, > > > non-orthogonal wart to pg_dump. Why is it not appropriate to just > > > do a COPY (SELECT ...) TO STDOUT when you need this? > > > > So you can dump a coherent sample database in one command, not 207. > > > > Every user of PostgreSQL wants a dev/test database. If the database is > > large it isn't practical to take a complete copy. Nor is it practical to > > hand-write a data sampling extraction program and if you do, its usually > > imperfect in many ways. > > > > Adding this feature gives a very fast capability to create sample > > databases, or incremental backups for many cases. > > Not sure I buy this argument. I am all for usability and I would be the > first to shout about the general ridiculousness of pg_dump/all/restore > but in this case I think Tom is right. This feature could easily be done > in a script without harassing pg_dump.
You can do it, yes. But it takes a lot longer. If the time to implement was similar, then I would immediately agree "feature available already". pg_dump is not "harassed" by this. What is lost by adding this feature? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
