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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
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 12:18:48
Message-ID: 7462.1090325928@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> One problem with this patch is that there's no way to dump multiple
> tables in different schemas. Does this matter? It's a bit
> non-orthogonal...

Yeah. With the combination of -n and -t you can pull a specific table,
but as soon as you allow either switch to be multiple you've got an
inexact tool.

I had thought of allowing -t to be schema.table but I'm worried about
backwards-compatibility issues. In particular, since we don't support
SQL-style quoting in -t arguments, how could one then select a table
name that actually contains a dot? Or should we just write off that
case as "stupidity is its own reward"? It would also be good to not
foreclose the possibility of wild-card matching patterns in these
switches in future.

(BTW, does the patch handle multiple -n switches?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David F. Skoll 2004-07-20 12:23:46 Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-20 11:57:16 Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David F. Skoll 2004-07-20 12:23:46 Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-20 11:57:16 Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)