Re: [HACKERS] Backup, restore & pg_dump

2000-10-15 Thread Philip Warner
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

Re: [HACKERS] Backup, restore & pg_dump

2000-10-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] Backup, restore & pg_dump

2000-10-15 Thread The Hermit Hacker
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

Re: [HACKERS] Backup, restore & pg_dump

2000-10-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] Backup, restore & pg_dump

2000-10-15 Thread Tom Lane
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