Re: patch for allowing multiple -t options to pg_dump

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak(at)officenet(dot)no>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch for allowing multiple -t options to pg_dump
Date: 2004-07-23 18:45:36
Message-ID: 200407231845.i6NIjat11210@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


His patch has multiple -t options and -T.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Tuesday 20 July 2004 05:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Looks like someone else also just submitted the same patch, except with
> > a -T option to exclude tables. I will consider that version instead.
>
> I can certainly see how that -T option is valuable, but I think multiple -t
> options also make sense if you just want to dump 2 or 3 tables in a database
> containing lots of tables. Why not include both?
>
> --
> Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak(at)officenet(dot)no>
> Senior Software Developer / Manager
> gpg public_key: http://dev.officenet.no/~andreak/public_key.asc
> ------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
> OfficeNet AS | - a tool should do one job, and do it well. |
> Hoffsveien 17 | |
> PO. Box 425 Sk?yen | |
> 0213 Oslo | |
> NORWAY | |
> Phone : +47 22 13 01 00 | |
> Direct: +47 22 13 10 03 | |
> Mobile: +47 909 56 963 | |
> ------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
-- End of PGP section, PGP failed!

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2004-07-23 18:51:46 Re: [HACKERS] Tutorial
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2004-07-23 18:12:09 Re: [HACKERS] Wrong index choosen?