Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ed721552-42ce-8459-b1db-1e57bb44117f@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option
Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/17/18 9:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > The comment in expand_dbname_patterns is ungrammatical and mentions > "OID" rather than "name", so I suggest > > /* > * The loop below might sometimes result in duplicate entries in the > * output name list, but we don't care. > */ Will fix. > I'm not sure this is grammatical either: > exclude databases whose name matches PATTERN > I would have written it like this: > exclude databases whose names match PATTERN > but I'm not sure (each database has only one name, of course, but aren't > you talking about multiple databases there?) I think the original is grammatical. > Other than that, the patch seems fine to me -- I tested and it works as > intended. > > Personally I would say "See also expand_table_name_patterns" instead of > "This is similar to code in pg_dump.c for handling matching table names.", > as well as mention this function in expand_table_name_patterns' comment. > (No need to mention expand_schema_name_patterns, since these are > adjacent.) But this is mostly stylistic and left to your own judgement. > > In the long run, I think we should add an option to processSQLNamePattern > to use OR instead of AND, which would fix both this problem as well as > pg_dump's. I don't think that's important enough to stall this patch. Thanks for the review. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: