From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pubaddr5(at)davyandbeth(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Adding WHERE clause to pg_dump |
Date: | 2008-07-25 21:56:34 |
Message-ID: | 1217022994.3894.1049.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:29 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > - users could make partial dumps and be confused and lose data.
> >
> > Yes, but they can already do that with -n, -t, and the new
> pre-data
> > and post-data switches. This is one more case where the
> default is
> > a full dump but you one can specificly request less.
>
> No they actually can't. You are guaranteed that regardless of a -n or
> -t
> flag that the data you receive is consistent. You can't guarantee that
> with -w because you could pull different data based on an arbitrary
> conditional that can not apply to all objects.
But are you guaranteed that you have all tables in FK relationships? No.
(But I like that capability also - its useful).
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-25 22:10:54 | Re: Research/Implementation of Nested Loop Join optimization |
Previous Message | Davy Durham | 2008-07-25 21:46:59 | Re: Adding WHERE clause to pg_dump |