Re: Should partial dumps include extensions?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should partial dumps include extensions?
Date: 2011-05-26 13:28:11
Message-ID: 12961.1306416491@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tis, 2011-05-24 at 23:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> There's a complaint here
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-05/msg00714.php
>>> about the fact that 9.1 pg_dump always dumps CREATE EXTENSION commands
>>> for all loaded extensions. Should we change that? A reasonable
>>> compromise might be to suppress extensions in the same cases where we
>>> suppress procedural languages, ie if --schema or --table was used
>>> (see "include_everything" switch in pg_dump.c).

>> Making it work like procedural languages seems sensible to me.

> The same problem still exists for foreign data wrappers, servers, and
> user mappings. It should probably be changed in the same way.

No objection here, but I'm not going to go do it ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Cédric Villemain 2011-05-26 14:21:21 Re: Hash Anti Join performance degradation
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-05-26 13:02:30 Re: Proposal: Another attempt at vacuum improvements