Re: Adding an ignore list to pg_restore, prototype patch #1

From: Martin Pitt <mpitt(at)debian(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Adding an ignore list to pg_restore, prototype patch #1
Date: 2006-02-25 12:46:48
Message-ID: 20060225124648.GA6968@piware.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi again,

Martin Pitt [2006-02-19 14:39 +0100]:
> Since this changes the behaviour of pg_restore, this should probably
> become an option, e. g. -D / --ignore-existing-table-data. I'll do
> this if you agree to the principle of the current patch.

I improved the patch now to only ignore TABLE DATA for existing tables
if '-X ignore-existing-tables' is specified. I also updated the
documentation.

Since this doesn't change the default behaviour now any more, I would
like to put this patch into the Debian packages to provide automatic
upgrades for PostGIS-enabled databases (see [1]). Does anyone object
to this?

Do you consider to adopt this upstream?

Thanks in advance, and have a nice weekend!

Martin

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/351571

--
Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org

In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

Attachment Content-Type Size
13-pg_restore-ignore-existing-tables.patch text/plain 3.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-02-25 13:02:15 Re: What's with this lib suffix?
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-02-25 12:17:56 What's with this lib suffix?