On 13340 March 1977, Daniel Pocock wrote:
However, if the package is formally rejected by the FTP masters then I
will be happy to change it to ASCII SQL if required.
Please include the source / preferred form for modification in the
source, and create this postgres thing from that.
I've now
On 09/20/2013 06:18 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
To go the other way (from an ASCII SQL into a binary dump file) during
the package build phase, it needs to be loaded into a running PostgreSQL
server and then extracted with pg_dump. I don't think that is a great
build dependency, especially if
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
PostBooks distributes their schema as a Postgres binary dump file for
use with pg_restore
What is their reason for using the binary format? Could they be
convinced to switch to or add something more normal like compressed
SQL?
--
bye,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
FWIW, you can convert the file to text using pg_restore, you don't actually
need a running database server. It's really just a compressed tarball and
should be treated as such. That is, I think it can be included as-is. Unless
On 20/09/13 09:07, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
PostBooks distributes their schema as a Postgres binary dump file for
use with pg_restore
What is their reason for using the binary format? Could they be
convinced to switch to or add something more
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:07:48AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
PostBooks distributes their schema as a Postgres binary dump file for
use with pg_restore
What is their reason for using the binary format? Could they be
convinced to switch
On 20/09/2013 10:59, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:07:48AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
PostBooks distributes their schema as a Postgres binary dump file for
use with pg_restore
What is their reason for using the
Re: Paul Wise 2013-09-20
CAKTje6H+3YuHOo3Tr39yuCubjdZD08XOcVUu=02tvttx9x1...@mail.gmail.com
The format doesn't appear to be very efficient, the plain SQL commands
are much smaller:
pabs@wagner:~$ pg_restore -l postbooks_empty-4.1.0.backup foo.sql
pabs@wagner:~$ ls -Ssh
total 5.6M
5.3M
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
Just speaking for myself here, but I find that the binary format is more
flexible in that pg_restore can selectively restore things, generate DROP
statements, restoring things in parallel and such. All in all, the binary
format
On 20/09/13 17:07, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 05:04:50PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 20/09/13 15:49, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 02:47:39PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:20:38PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
It is also
PostBooks distributes their schema as a Postgres binary dump file for
use with pg_restore
They are available for download here (not in the source tarball):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/postbooks/files/03%20PostBooks-databases/4.1.0/
The pg_dump documentation explains the binary format
On 19 September 2013 14:42, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote:
PostBooks distributes their schema as a Postgres binary dump file for
use with pg_restore
They are available for download here (not in the source tarball):
12 matches
Mail list logo
