On 10/12/2012 03:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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.
That's my feeling too.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
