Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: >>> pg_dump | pg_restore >>> pg_export | psql >> >> While I agree that this idea - when implemented - would be nicer in >> practically every way, I'm not sure I want to volunteer to do all the >> necessary work. > > What I think needs to happen now is a commiter's buy in that we want to > get there at some point and that your current patch is not painting us > into any corner now. So that we can accept it and have a documented path > forward.
Just stumbled accross this message while reading some older threads about the current topic: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg02496.php Where Robert Treat said: > I've both enjoyed reading this thread and seeing this wheel reinvented > yet again, and wholeheartedly +1 the idea of building this directly > into pg_dump. (The only thing better would be to make everything thing > sql callable, but that's a problem for another day). I know Andrew has been working on his "Retail DDL" project which is basically a bunch of server-side functions that spits out SQL object definitions. Andrew, were you able to make progress on that project? On the other hand, pg_dump -Fs still is something I would like to have as a complement to Andrew's facility. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
