On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:00 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ah...@gmail.com> writes: > > +1 using the library to tar. > > Uh, *what* library? >
I was just replying the Robert that he said "But I think there must be a reason why tar libraries exist, and I don't want to write a new one." I said I am ok to use a library "what he is proposing/thinking", but explained to him that TAR is the most simpler format that why PG has its own code. > pg_dump's pg_backup_tar.c is about 1300 lines, a very large fraction > of which is boilerplate for interfacing to pg_backup_archiver's APIs. > The stuff that actually knows specifically about tar looks to be maybe > a couple hundred lines, plus there's another couple hundred lines of > (rather duplicative?) code in src/port/tar.c. None of it is rocket > science. > > I can't believe that it'd be a good tradeoff to create a new external > dependency to replace that amount of code. In case you haven't noticed, > our luck with depending on external libraries has been abysmal. > > Possibly there's an argument for refactoring things so that there's > more stuff in tar.c and less elsewhere, but let's not go looking > for external code to depend on. > > regards, tom lane > -- Ibrar Ahmed
