* Simon Riggs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The key capability here is being able to split the dump into multiple > pieces. The equivalent capability on restore is *not* required, because > once the dump has been split the restore never needs to be. It might > seem that the patch should be symmetrical with respect to pg_dump and > pg_restore, but I see no use case for the pg_restore case.
I'm inclined to agree with this. It might have been nice to provide a way to split out already-created dumps, but I suspect that people who need that probably have already figured out a way to do it (I know I have..). We should probably ensure that pg_restore doesn't *break* when fed a partial dump. > > The patch as submitted enforces what seem largely arbitrary restrictions > > on combining these switches. > > I had it both ways at various points in development. I'm happy with what > you propose. I agree with removing the restrictions. I don't see much in the way of use cases, but it reduces code and doesn't cause problems. > > Another issue is that the rules for deciding which objects are "before > > data" and which are "after data" are wrong. In particular ACLs are after > > data not before data, which is relatively easy to fix. > > OK This was partially why I was complaining about having documentation, and a policy for that matter, which goes into more detail about why X is before or after the data. I agree that they're after today, but I don't see any particular reason why they should be one or the other. If we adopted a policy like I proposed (--schema-post-data is essentially that which uses the data and is faster done in bulk) then ACLs would be before, and I tend to feel like it makes more sense that way. > > Not so easy to fix > > is that COMMENTs might be either before or after data depending on what > > kind of object they are attached to. > > Is there anything to fix? Comments are added by calls to dumpComment, > which are always made in conjunction with the dump of an object. So if > you dump the object you dump the comment. As long as objects are > correctly split out then comments will be also. I agree with this, and it follows for BLOB comments- in any case, they go with the object being dumped at the time of that object getting dumped. Comments make sense as an extention of the object, not as a seperate set of objects to be explicitly placed before or after the data. > All of the above makes me certain I want to remove these options from > pg_restore. I'm in agreement with this. > > BTW, another incomplete item is that pg_dumpall should probably be taught > > to accept and pass down --schema-before-data and --schema-after-data > > switches. > > OK I could go either way on this. > Can we prune down to the base use case to avoid this overhead? i.e. have > these options on pg_dump only? Makes sense to me. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature