| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
| Date: | 2010-12-20 17:50:03 |
| Message-ID: | 11561.1292867403@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of sb dic 18 02:21:41 -0300 2010:
>> 1. pg_dump needs an option to control whether unlogged tables are
>> dumped. --no-unlogged-tables seems like the obvious choice, assuming
>> we want the default to be to dump them, which seems like the safest
>> option.
> If there are valid use cases for some unlogged tables being dumped and
> some others not, would it make sense to be able to specify a pattern of
> tables to be dumped or skipped?
Presumably you could still do that with the regular --tables name
pattern switch. I don't see a reason for unlogged tables to respond to
a different name pattern.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-12-20 17:54:11 | Re: pg_ctl and port number detection |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-12-20 17:49:22 | Re: serializable lock consistency |