On 2010-06-10, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> On 10/06/10 16:21, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> I do agree that the human readability of pg_dump is an asset in many >>>> situations - I have often dumped out the DDL for particular objects >>>> just to look at it, for example. However, I emphatically do NOT agree >>>> that leaving someone with a 500MB dump file (or, for some people on >>>> this list, a whole heck of a lot larger than that) that has to be >>>> manually edited to reload is a useful behavior. It's a huge pain in >>>> the neck. >> >>> Much easier to do a schema-only dump, edit that, and dump data separately. >> >> That gets you out of the huge-file-to-edit problem, but the performance >> costs of restoring a separate-data dump are a pretty serious >> disadvantage. We really should do something about that. > > well that is an argument for providing not only --schema-only and > --data-only but rather three options one for the table definitions, one > for the data and one for all the constraints and indexes. So basically > what pg_dump is currently doing anyway but just exposed as flags.
You can extract those parts from a schema-only (or full) dump using sed or you can just edit the schema-only dump and insert \i datadump.sql in the apropriate spot. -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
