From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "David F(dot) Skoll" <dfs(at)roaringpenguin(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option |
Date: | 2004-07-21 01:27:02 |
Message-ID: | 40FDC666.8050700@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> No, it doesn't. I can look into that if you like. The patch was
> entirely to satisfy a need some of our customers have. The -T switch
> does fill a real need for our customers; our product has a couple of tables
> that aren't critical if they aren't backed up, but as the product evolves,
> we occasionally add more tables. So it's easier to use a -T switch to
> say what *not* to back up, than multiple -t switches to say what to back up.
Well, since you wrote the patch, you'd be better off munging it. Read
Tom's comments and see what you can come up with. There's been no
decision made yet though on what changes to make however.
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-21 01:41:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-21 01:04:26 | Re: check point segments leakage ? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-21 01:37:06 | Re: pg_dump --clean w/ <= 7.2 server |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-21 00:55:43 | Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions |