Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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 ?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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