Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FA463408C for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:50:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27781-07 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:50:18 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41755633EA4 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:49:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n6LGnqt7015028; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:49:52 -0400 (EDT) To: Rob Sargent cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Order of operations in ascii vs archive format (moderately urgent) In-reply-to: <4A65EC7A.8010003@gmail.com> References: <4A65EC7A.8010003@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Rob Sargent message dated "Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:27:38 -0600" Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:49:52 -0400 Message-ID: <15027.1248194992@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.075 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.075 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200907/92 X-Sequence-Number: 32833 Rob Sargent writes: > Is there a difference in the order of execution between an ascii dump > and one using the "custom" format? Or any difference in the general > operation? There's not supposed to be. One standard test on the pg_dump code is pg_dump >textfile pg_dump -Fc >dumpfile pg_restore dumpfile >textfile2 diff textfile textfile2 If these don't produce the same results something is broken. regards, tom lane