On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <[email protected]> writes: >>> Stephen Frost <[email protected]> wrote: >>> In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial >>> implementation.. > >> No disagreement there; but sometimes it pays to know where you might >> want to go, so you don't do something to make further development in >> that direction unnecessarily difficult. > > I think that setting out to reimplement rsync, or to go down a design > path where we're likely to do a lot of that eventually, is the height > of folly. We should be standing on the shoulders of other projects, > not rolling our own because of misguided ideas about people not having > those projects installed. > > IOW, what I'd like to see is protocol extensions that allow an external > copy of rsync to be invoked; not build in rsync, or tar, or anything > else that we could get off-the-shelf.
We used to use "cp" to create databases. Should we go back to that system? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
