Re: Odd warning from pg_dump

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Odd warning from pg_dump
Date: 2016-03-08 17:25:24
Message-ID: 20160308172524.GA904118@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > I think the real question is if "-n '*'" should still exclude
> > 'pg_catalog'. Fixing the issue with defined pseudo types is wonderful,
> > but aren't you going to end up with a dump you can't restore,
> > regardless?
> Yeah, perhaps so. The thread on -general has also produced the
> information that pg_dump -t '*' tries to dump system catalogs as if
> they were user tables, which is another pretty useless bit of behavior.
> So maybe we should drop the hunk you've got there (which frankly seems a
> bit of a kluge) and instead hot-wire things so that stuff in pg_catalog
> is excluded even if it would otherwise match the inclusion lists.

Not sure that's reasonable. We have at least one extension in contrib
that creates objects in pg_catalog. ISTM that's enough precedent that
more could be created in the future. (Now of course extensions get
special treatment anyway, but my point is that there's no prohibition
against creating objects in pg_catalog.)

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-03-08 17:31:44 Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-08 17:18:40 Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification