From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New pg_dump options: exclude tables/schemas, multiple |
Date: | 2006-01-18 22:42:03 |
Message-ID: | 200601182242.k0IMg3a22357@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > 3) It would require yet more arguments to pg_dump. The moment we start allowing
> > regular expression characters that are also valid identifier names (e.g. "."
> > and "_") we'll need some way to tell pg_dump whether we mean a literal search
> > or a regular expression one.
>
> However, we are going to have that problem in spades if we do a
> half-baked pattern feature now and then want to improve it later.
> I think it'd be better to get it right the first time.
>
> In practice, I don't think that LIKE-style patterns (% and _ wildcards)
> will pose a serious compatibility problem if we just decree that the
> -n and -t switches now take patterns rather than plain names. I agree
> that regex-style patterns would open some gotchas, but what's wrong with
> standardizing on LIKE patterns?
I am concerned about the number of object names that have an underscore.
It seems regex would have fewer conflicts, even though it has more
special characters.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-18 22:43:39 | Re: New pg_dump options: exclude tables/schemas, multiple |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-18 22:36:14 | Re: Uninstall scripts for contrib |