Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 12:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Gained. Code complexity.
Hardly, patch is very small. I would recognise that as a factor
otherwise.
What I see is a recipe for inconsistent, un-restorable backups without a
user realizing what they have done.
I agree on the backup side, but then who would extract just a portion of
their data for backup? It would be no backup at all.
If you did use this as part of an incremental backup scheme, then they
would have to test it (just like any backup method). Incremental backups
rarely have self-consistency except as part of a greater whole.
As a dev tool it makes sense.
I think we have yet another case for moving the core bits of pg_dump
into a library that can then be used by lots of clients. Until we do
that we're going to get continual pressure to add extra cases to pg_dump
unrelated to its principal functionality.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
