Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_dump --no-tablespaces for the custom format
От | Euler Taveira |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_dump --no-tablespaces for the custom format |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH503wDzdN3rw-7xAMypCrxPenA-EcgsavxMm_JEKPt8xY-UiQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_dump --no-tablespaces for the custom format (Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_dump --no-tablespaces for the custom format
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 04:20, Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>> So I'm new to poking around in the PostgreSQL code, so this is a bit of
>> a shot in the dark. I'm having some problems with pg_dump, and a
>> database with tablespaces. A couple of the tables are not in the default
>> tablespace, and I want to ignore this for the dump.
>
> I think you've misunderstood how the pieces fit together. A lot of
> the detail-filtering switches, including --no-tablespaces, work on
> the output side of the "archive" format. While you can't really tell
> the difference in pg_dump text mode, the implication for custom-format
> output is that the info is always there in the archive file, and you
> give the switch to pg_restore if you don't want to see the info.
> This is more flexible since you aren't compelled to make the decision
> up-front, and it doesn't really cost anything to include such info in
> the archive. (Obviously, table-filtering switches don't work that
> way, since with those there can be a really large cost in file size
> to include unwanted data.)
>
I've also had to explain a dozen times how the archive format works. Archive
format is kind of intermediary format because you can produce a plain format
using it.
[Testing some pg_dump --no-option ...]
The following objects are not included if a --no-option is used:
* grant / revoke
* comment
* publication
* subscription
* security labels
but some are included even if --no-option is used:
* owner
* tablespace
I'm wondering why there is such a distinction. We have some options:
(a) leave it as is and document that those 2 options has no effect in pg_dump
and possibly add a warning to report if someone uses it with an archive format;
(b) exclude owner and tablespace from archive (it breaks compatibility but do
exactly what users expect).
I do not even consider a possibility to include all objects even if a
--no-option is used because you will have a bunch of complaints / reports.
format is kind of intermediary format because you can produce a plain format
using it.
[Testing some pg_dump --no-option ...]
The following objects are not included if a --no-option is used:
* grant / revoke
* comment
* publication
* subscription
* security labels
but some are included even if --no-option is used:
* owner
* tablespace
I'm wondering why there is such a distinction. We have some options:
(a) leave it as is and document that those 2 options has no effect in pg_dump
and possibly add a warning to report if someone uses it with an archive format;
(b) exclude owner and tablespace from archive (it breaks compatibility but do
exactly what users expect).
I do not even consider a possibility to include all objects even if a
--no-option is used because you will have a bunch of complaints / reports.
Euler Taveira http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: