Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths

From: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths
Date: 2002-05-14 06:29:53
Message-ID: 1021357794.1539.95.camel@linda
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 07:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> You have no fear that that "sed" will substitute some places it
> shouldn't have? Also, what makes you think this'll be a "rarely
> used" feature? I'd guess that people load dumps every day into
> databases that have different names than the ones they dumped from.
> Don't see why the same is not likely to be true at the schema level.

A pg_restore option would presumably be more reliable than sed.

--
Oliver Elphick Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of
death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Psalms 23:4

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Michel POURE 2002-05-14 06:35:12 Re: [HACKERS] Bug #659: lower()/upper() bug on
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-05-14 06:08:22 Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths