Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?!
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobgeU9T6A59gNuZY1hhh54xwWZ6segQoAu6qMnvzpOx1A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?!
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I don't recall that we thought very hard about what should happen when > pg_dump switches are used to produce a selective dump, but ISTM > reasonable that if it's "user data" then it should be dumped only if > data in a regular user table would be. Yep. > What's not apparent to me is whether there's an argument for doing more > than that. It strikes me that the current design is not very friendly > towards the idea of an extension that creates a table that's meant > solely to hold user data --- you'd have to mark it as "config" which > seems a bit unfortunate terminology for that case. Is it important to > do something about that, and if so what? Is this anything more than a naming problem? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: