From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables |
Date: | 2015-04-09 13:29:56 |
Message-ID: | CAMsr+YG+Ysf8s8oLeNL+Cv_WyJujMpD5Fvt5rQXe7beZ-vA4YQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 April 2015 at 05:05, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised
>> >> views to the pg_restore -t flag.
>>
>> > I think this is a good change. Any concerns?
>>
>> Are we happy with pg_dump/pg_restore not distinguishing these objects
>> by type? It seems rather analogous to letting ALTER TABLE work on views
>> etc. Personally I'm fine with this, but certainly some people have
>> complained about that approach so far as ALTER is concerned. (But the
>> implication would be that we'd need four distinct switches, which is
>> not an outcome I favor.)
>>
>
> The pg_dump documentation for the equivalent "-t" switch states:
>
> "Dump only tables (or views or sequences or foreign tables) matching
> table"
>
> Does pg_dump need to be updated to address materialized views here?
>
The pg_dump code handles materialized views, the docs weren't updated. I
added mention of them in the next rev of the patch to pg_restore.
> Does pg_restore need to be updated to address sequences here?
>
I'd be against that if pg_dump didn't already behave the same way. Given
that, yes, I think so.
> ISTM that the two should mirror each other.
>
Ideally, yes, but the differences go much deeper than this.
to get the equivalent of:
pg_restore -n myschema -t sometable
in pg_dump you need:
pg_dump -t "\"myschema\".\"sometable\""
pg_dump -n myschema -t sometable is **not** equivalent. In fact, the -n is
ignored, and -t will match using the search_path.
so they're never really going to be the same, just similar enough to catch
people out most of the time.
I think you're right that sequences should be included by pg_restore since
they are by pg_dump, though. So v3 patch attached.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_restore_t_match_views-v3.patch | text/x-patch | 4.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-04-09 13:33:16 | Re: Row security violation error is misleading |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-04-09 13:27:20 | Re: psql showing owner in \dT |