On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 09:26:18AM +1000, steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > G'day, > > I am just running a straight pg_dump with no options. > With the -Fc option the DB size is reduced to about: 700MB > > Is the -Fc a compressed format? Are there any limitations or side effects > to using this output, is it slower?? etc etc. Can this output be restored > via the normal method of: psql dbname < sql.dump Yes -Fc is a compressed format. From the man page of pg_dump: "custom: Output a custom archive suitable for input into pg_restore. This is the most flexible format in that it allows reordering of loading data as well as object definitions. This format is also compressed by default." Whether or not the dump takes less or more time probably depends on your spare CPU vs your spare IO capacity, in general I'd say it isn't slower, given today's CPU, but I haven't measured this. For restoring the DB you need to run the dump through pg_restore first, which gives you various dials to control what to restore and how, and then feed it into psql as usual. This gives you more flexibility than with the plain SQL dump. Also, you can recreate a plain SQL dump with pg_restore should you require one. One drawback could be that if you lose your DB and something also damages parts of your dumps, a compressed format might mean you can't restore any data at all, vs. at least some data with plain SQL dump. But that's not a very likely scenario, is it? ;-) Also, you can't always restore from an -Fc dump, if your pg_restore version is much older than the one that particular dump was created with. For instance, trying to restore an 8.3.3 dump with a 7.4.19 pg_restore I get: "pg_restore: [archiver] unsupported version (1.10) in file header" When I use a 8.1.11 pg_restore, it seems to work fine. But that's hardly a suprising result. Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
