Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_restore -t table concerns

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mike Toews <mwtoews(at)sfu(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_restore -t table concerns
Date: 2009-06-29 17:33:07
Message-ID: 4A48FAD3.9090807@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Toews <mwtoews(at)sfu(dot)ca> writes:
>   
>> I have a few concerns with the usability and documentation for 
>> pg_restore (note: I'm on 8.3, but I've checked the documentation for 8.4).
>>     
>
> There's a TODO item about that already...
>
> * Add support for multiple pg_restore -t options, like pg_dump
>
> 	pg_restore's -t switch is less useful than pg_dump's in quite a
> 	few ways: no multiple switches, no pattern matching, no ability
> 	to pick up indexes and other dependent items for a selected
> 	table. It should be made to handle this switch just like pg_dump
> 	does.
>
> 			
>   

It should also be pointed out that there is a workaround using the 
--use-list option.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-06-29 17:52:04
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2009-06-29 17:27:14
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group