Tom Lane wrote:
> > 3) It would require yet more arguments to pg_dump. The moment we start allowing
> > regular expression characters that are also valid identifier names (e.g. "."
> > and "_") we'll need some way to tell pg_dump whether we mean a literal search
> > or a regular expression one.
> However, we are going to have that problem in spades if we do a
> half-baked pattern feature now and then want to improve it later.
> I think it'd be better to get it right the first time.
> In practice, I don't think that LIKE-style patterns (% and _ wildcards)
> will pose a serious compatibility problem if we just decree that the
> -n and -t switches now take patterns rather than plain names. I agree
> that regex-style patterns would open some gotchas, but what's wrong with
> standardizing on LIKE patterns?
I am concerned about the number of object names that have an underscore.
It seems regex would have fewer conflicts, even though it has more
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
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-01-18 22:43:39|
|Subject: Re: New pg_dump options: exclude tables/schemas, multiple|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-01-18 22:36:14|
|Subject: Re: Uninstall scripts for contrib|