| 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: | 2006-10-06 17:22:25 |
| Message-ID: | 28774.1160155345@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:
> Would it be reasonable to include one more switch: 'include
> dependencies' ?
We are two months past feature freeze ... adding entirely new features
to pg_dump is *not* on the table for 8.2. What we need to do at the
moment is make sure that the features we've got work sanely and won't
create headaches for likely future extensions; but not actually
implement those extensions.
> The scenario I most care about is to be able to make a complete data
> base dump (including non-schema objects) while excluding only a few
> tables.
Isn't this the same as Kris' complaint? Why do you need additional
dependency analysis to do the above?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-06 17:36:53 | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-10-06 16:26:10 | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |