On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:45:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > > 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. > > That might work. However, just to be contrary: what about the > functionality of pg_dumpall? We've heard repeated complaints about > pg_dump's lack of ability to dump multiple databases or global > settings, and just institutionalizing the existing -Fc format as the > default will make it harder not easier to fix that. > > I'd be happier about inventing a pg_backup if it were a replacement > for pg_dumpall and not just a cosmetic wrapper.
That the two are still separate is idiotic. If it were me waving this wand, I'd see to it that -Fd (directory) rather than -Fc (custom), was the default for pg_backup, as it makes the choice to use -j (>1 core) trivial. I'd also make sure that the directory format could handle the entirety of the backed-up database in some comprehensible way. Maybe a globals/ and a databases/ directory up top... Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
