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.
>
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 i
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
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
Re: Paul Wise 2013-09-20
> 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 postbooks_empty-4.1.0.backup 344K foo.sql
pg_restore -l wil
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
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
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 m
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 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,
pa
On 19 September 2013 14:42, Daniel Pocock 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):
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/postbooks/files/03%20PostBooks-databases/4
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 fe
12 matches
Mail list logo
