On 11 October 2012 20:30, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@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. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
