| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David F(dot) Skoll" <dfs(at)roaringpenguin(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option |
| Date: | 2004-07-20 05:26:06 |
| Message-ID: | 40FCACEE.7000200@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>>Weeeeell, I guess I'm against it based on the rules of feature freeze,
>>even though it would be really useful for me :(
>
> It would have been a lot easier to approve it if it'd arrived on June 30
> rather than July 6 :-(. However, I do believe that David originally
> submitted a slightly-too-late version of this in the previous release
> cycle, so maybe we could cut him a little slack and pretend this is a
> mistakenly-forgotten patch that we held over from 7.4.
Yes, the reason it would be nice for me is that currently if you want to
dump two specific, related tables from your db, there's no way to do it
with pg_dump within the one transactions (ie. maintaining integrity). I
guess I'm in favour of -t -t but not -T depending on the complexity of
it. I'll review the patch if you like.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-07-20 05:59:43 | Re: pg_config |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-20 04:55:17 | Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-07-20 05:59:43 | Re: pg_config |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-20 04:55:17 | Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option |