Re: New pg_dump options: exclude tables/schemas, multiple

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, I see the group came to the same conclusion. I should have read
to the end of the thread.

--
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