X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B489FA218 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:19:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57599-08 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:18:54 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664D29F9CEE for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:18:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4GNImDk013192; Tue, 16 May 2006 19:18:48 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jim C. Nasby" cc: Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: Mention pg_dump version portability In-reply-to: <20060516184633.GM26212@pervasive.com> References: <20060515202354.GM26212@pervasive.com> <200605152343.k4FNhK703441@candle.pha.pa.us> <20060516184633.GM26212@pervasive.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Jim C. Nasby" message dated "Tue, 16 May 2006 13:46:33 -0500" Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:18:48 -0400 Message-ID: <13191.1147821528@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/31 X-Sequence-Number: 3558 "Jim C. Nasby" writes: > But shouldn't the custom format deal better with version changes, or > does the format of custom change just as often? It's completely orthogonal, because the SQL involved is just the same. One of the tests I periodically run is to compare pg_dump >foo pg_dump -Fc | pg_restore >bar and make sure the outputs are word-for-word the same. What custom or tar format buys you is the flexibility of extracting different subsets of the dump after-the-fact, using pg_restore's switches. Of course you can do that with a text editor on a plain dump, if the dump's not too large for your editor to handle ... regards, tom lane