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
