From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
Date: | 2006-10-06 17:36:53 |
Message-ID: | 2038.1160156213@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Or we could
>> import the rather ad-hoc shell-wildcard-like rules used by psql's \d
>> stuff. None of these are especially attractive :-(
> 1. regexes, please.
One argument that occurs to me for importing the psql code is that it's
solved the problem of including a schema name in the pattern. It would
be a lot nicer to say "-t schema.table" than to have to say "-t table -n
schema". In particular this allows one to dump s1.foo and s2.bar
without also getting s1.bar and s2.foo; a problem that is insoluble if
we have only independent schema and table filters. I think that ideally
one would only use the schema switches if one actually wanted a
schema-by-schema dump, not as a wart on the side of the
specific-object-selection switches.
The psql code does allow you to get at most of the functionality of
regexes...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-10-06 18:11:56 | Backbranch releases |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-06 17:22:25 | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |