On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11 October 2012 20:30, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> I have a quietish few days starting on Saturday, will be looking at this >>> then. Is it only the Windows aspect that needs reviewing? Are we more or >>> less happy with the rest? >> >> I think the Windows issues were the biggest thing, but I suspect there >> may be a few other warts as well. It's a lot of code, and it's >> modifying pg_dump, which is an absolute guarantee that it's built on a >> foundation made out of pure horse manure. > > That may be so, but enough people dependent upon it that now I'm > wondering whether we should be looking to create a new utility > altogether, or at least have pg_dump_parallel and pg_dump to avoid any > screw ups with people's backups/restores.
Well, I think pg_dump may well need a full rewrite to be anything like sane. But I'm not too keen about forking it as part of adding parallel dump. I think we can sanely hack this patch into what's there now. It's liable to be a bit hard to verify, but in the long run having two copies of the code is going to be a huge maintenance headache, so we should avoid that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
