On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Maybe I failed to parse his proposal. It's helpful if you elaborate it. >> > > As per mail , it seems the proposal is not to use .tar for -Z 0.
I was thinking that the proposal is "output uncompressed tar data, and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file name" part. So, if -Z 0 is specified with tar format, .gz should not be added as a file extension. > Now here actually we are on the fence, one can argue that if user > doesn't want compression, he or she can use -F p (plain format). > OTOH, without compression getting the backup as a single .tar file > makes it simple to manage. Right now we are providing both methods, plain and tar formats (without compression, i.e., neither -z nor -Z options are specified). > I think there is some value in providing > .tar for -Z 0, I was thinking that "-Ft -Z0" is something like an alias of "-Ft". That is, the backup is taken in uncompressed tar format. > however in that case how should we define usage of -F p > -Z 0? Shall we say with plain format -Z 0 gets ignored or throw error > or do something else? If first, then I think it is better to mention > the same in docs. ISTM that it's better to ignore that case, like pg_dump -Ft -Z0 doesn't throw an error. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers