Re: Calling all testers: 1.1 now in feature freeze

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On 9/18/06, David Tangye <..hidden..> wrote:

> The only way I have ever written application backup code, is to have the
> code look in the database for subject matter, not the create__.sql
> scripts that *might* be the basis for the current schema. This way, if
> anyone adds columns, eg as per your latest fix allows, or someone hacks
> a change into anywhere in the schema, that change is preserved, not
> lost. Backup should backup exactly what is there, no matter how it got
> there.

Yeah, well, there is a right way and a wrong way.  And I have no
comment on how SQL-Ledger does things....

> pg_dump is the next level up isn't it? ie Its a DBMS level backup. Even
> if it can back up per dataset, which fully contains an application's
> data, its not quite the same thing.

Right.  It isn't quite the same thing.  But since the "backup"
function in LSMB and SL simply provides a db backup, it ought to be
the better one.
> I don't quite follow this. If a restore using a pg_dump'ed file attempts
> to create again an existing language, is this a problem? Notwithstanding
> this, why not change the LedgerSMB backup option to simply backup
> per-dataset via pg_dump?
The restore would fail, but then it is an easy problem to fix if it is
documented.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers