On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 07:47 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > 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. That's a good idea and I support that. I'm slightly suprised at the "principal functionality" bit. In a world where PITR exists the role and importance of pg_dump has waned considerably. What *is* its principal function? Does it have just one? One man's dev system is another man's data warehouse, or another man's backup. The meaning of a dump is defined by the user making the data dump, not the tool used. Is this one option sufficient to make us invent pg_make_dev_database? (With all pg_dump options, plus -w). If that's what we need, fine by me. I'm always interested in the capability not the structure/naming. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
