Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types
От | Richard Huxton |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45263C37.6000209@archonet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes: >> Testing out the new pg_dump exclusion switches I've found that excluding a >> table means that no functions or types will be dumped. Excluding one >> table shouldn't exclude these objects. > > I tend to agree ... will see if I can make it happen. (I never did get > around to reviewing that patch, anyway ...) > > One issue is what to do with procedural languages and large objects, > which don't have any associated schema. If we treat them as being > outside all schemas, we'd have semantics like this: dump the PLs and > blobs unless one or more --schema switches appeared. Is that OK? Is there a reason why pg_dump can't do the --list/--use-list flags like pg_restore, or is it just a matter of round tuits? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: