Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: depesz(at)depesz(dot)com
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!
Date: 2012-01-30 16:12:09
Message-ID: 15488.1327939929@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:10:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Um, yes. Read the manual.
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/extend-extensions.html#AEN51966

> Yes, but:

> If you create table using extensions, and the you insert data to it
> - this data will *not* be dumped using pg_dump.
> If you mark the table with pg_extension_config_dump() - the data fro the
> table will be dumped *always* - even for -s dump of another table.

Yes, that's the intended behavior. The purpose of the
configuration-table feature is to dump data that is needed for an
extension to operate properly --- for instance postgis has some
auxiliary tables that are best treated as part of the schema. If you
think the contents of a table are not effectively schema information,
then you shouldn't mark it as pg_extension_config_dump.

> I have since made some tests, and it looks like the dumping thing is
> fixed in 9.2devel from git HEAD, which seems to suggest that it will
> work sanely in 9.1.3 - so the point is kind of moot.

What tests were those exactly? I'm not aware of any agreed changes in
this area.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2012-01-30 16:20:15 Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!
Previous Message hubert depesz lubaczewski 2012-01-30 15:39:13 Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2012-01-30 16:20:15 Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2012-01-30 15:53:36 Re: Simulating Clog Contention