From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump using anything other than custom and directory
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 19:05:31 -0400
Message-ID: <8580.1555110331@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <93bf4376-6167-a89f-83c5-36aa0dadae2e@gmail.com>
References: <93bf4376-6167-a89f-83c5-36aa0dadae2e@gmail.com>
Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> writes:
> In 2019 using supported versions of PostgreSQL, what practical use is there
> to use the tar format, and -- other than migrating trivially sized databases
> to other RDBMSs -- the plain format?
The historical argument for the tar format is that you can get your
data out of it with a standard Unix tool (tar, of course), rather than
having to depend on the availability of pg_restore. Certainly there's
room to argue about how important that really is, but I don't think
the validity of the argument is much different than it was in 2001.
You need to be able to get a plain-text dump if you want to edit
the data or schema at all, which is a pretty common requirement.
However, as long as you're willing to assume the availability of
pg_restore, you can extract plain text from one of the other formats;
so this point isn't a reason not to make your dump in one of the
other formats to begin with.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com
Subject: Re: pg_dump using anything other than custom and directory
In-Reply-To: <8580.1555110331@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox