| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
| Date: | 2006-10-09 14:24:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1699.1160403867@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
>> Isn't this the same as Kris' complaint? Why do you need additional
>> dependency analysis to do the above?
> Well, I obviously didn't understand well the complete feature as it is
> implemented. Now, is what I want (see above) possible with the new
> feature, or if I exclude some tables I implicitly loose some other
> things too from the dump which normally would be there ? This is my only
> concern...
I think we've agreed that if you use some exclusion switches, but not
any inclusion switches, then only the specific objects matching your
switches are excluded. CVS HEAD gets this wrong, but I'm going to work
on it today.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-10-09 14:29:44 | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-10-09 14:21:11 | Re: Interface of the R-tree in order to work with postgresql |