At 00:45 16/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>What was the matter with the name pg_restore?
The fact that we will have a 'proper' backup/restore with the WAL changes,
and it seems more appropriate that the new utilities should be called
pg_backup & pg_restore. This leaves the 'undump' part of pg
Don't go changing yet. When Vadim has something, we can decide. I
think we may have unique commands for logging control and stuff, so
let's see how it plays out.
> At 00:45 16/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >What was the matter with the name pg_restore?
>
> The fact that we will have a 'p
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> What was the matter with the name pg_restore?
I didn't wanna be the one to ask, but I was kinda confused on that point
too ...
> > Since we may have a workable backup/restore based on WAL available in 7.1,
> > I am now wondering at the wisdom of creat
What was the matter with the name pg_restore?
>
> Since we may have a workable backup/restore based on WAL available in 7.1,
> I am now wondering at the wisdom of creating 'pg_restore', which reads the
> new pg_dump archive files. It is probably better to have pg_backup &
> pg_restore as the bac
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a result do people have any objection to changing pg_restore to
> pg_undump? Or pg_load?
Out of those two names, I'd vote for pg_load ...
regards, tom lane