Dave Page wrote: >> I don't object to it in principle, but I think a bit more thought is >> needed as to what's the goal. A stupid "append" option would be enough >> for pg_dumpall's current capabilities (ie, text output only) --- but is >> it reasonable to consider generalizing -Fc and -Ft modes to deal with >> multiple databases, and if so how would that need to change pg_dump's >> API? (I'm not at all sure this is feasible, but let's think about it >> before plastering warts onto pg_dump, not after.) > > Hmm, OK. I'll need to have a good look at the code before I can even > think about commenting on that, which will have to wait until after I've > finished bundling releases.
And having done so, I agree that it's not really feasible without significant effort to allow each archive format to be closed and re-opened between multiple instances of pg_dump and pg_dumpall, as well as to allow them to support multiple databases and global objects (though they can effectively live in the default DB of course) within a single archive. I'm fairly certain it would be easier to merge the two programs as originally suggested, though that does indeed look trickier (and more dangerous) than I originally envisaged. How about adding the append option, but leaving it undocumented. That way if anyone gets the itch to do a full rewrite in the future we haven't necessarily got to continue to support an option we no longer want? Regards, Dave. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate