Am 07.11.2013 19:08, schrieb Joshua D. Drake:> > On 11/07/2013 10:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> If we wanted to change the defaults, I think it would be easier to >> create a separate bin name (e.g. pg_backup) than to change the existing >> parameters for pg_dump. > > I am not opposed to that. Allow pg_dump to be what it is, and create a > pg_backup? > > JD
I would definitely agree to having "one" backup utility and making -Fc the default for SQL dumps. One could even argue if the functionality of pg_basebackup should be part of that too. But I would be fine with having two distinct utilities (one for file level backups and one for logical/SQL level backups), too. Btw, how hard would it be, to have pg_restore and now also pg_dump run with -j option do some ordering of work by size of e.g. the tables? E.g. if you run with -j4 it would make sense to start working on the largest tables (and it's indexes) first and continue by descending in t´size to keep all available "slots" filled as good as possible. Just at though. Jan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
