Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29671.1428438832@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables
Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised >> views to the pg_restore -t flag. > I think this is a good change. Any concerns? Are we happy with pg_dump/pg_restore not distinguishing these objects by type? It seems rather analogous to letting ALTER TABLE work on views etc. Personally I'm fine with this, but certainly some people have complained about that approach so far as ALTER is concerned. (But the implication would be that we'd need four distinct switches, which is not an outcome I favor.) Also, I think you missed "MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA". Also, shouldn't there be a documentation update? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: