| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
| Date: | 2012-01-31 12:36:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobgeU9T6A59gNuZY1hhh54xwWZ6segQoAu6qMnvzpOx1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't recall that we thought very hard about what should happen when
> pg_dump switches are used to produce a selective dump, but ISTM
> reasonable that if it's "user data" then it should be dumped only if
> data in a regular user table would be.
Yep.
> What's not apparent to me is whether there's an argument for doing more
> than that. It strikes me that the current design is not very friendly
> towards the idea of an extension that creates a table that's meant
> solely to hold user data --- you'd have to mark it as "config" which
> seems a bit unfortunate terminology for that case. Is it important to
> do something about that, and if so what?
Is this anything more than a naming problem?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2012-01-31 13:14:54 | Re: Why Hard-Coded Version 9.1 In Names? |
| Previous Message | durumdara | 2012-01-31 12:16:45 | Extending Session / Logged User info |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-31 13:06:51 | Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-31 10:30:14 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump -s dumps data?! |