Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option
Date: 2018-12-19 04:53:28
Message-ID: 20181219045328.GB19856@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:26:41PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 11/18/18 1:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 11/17/18 9:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> In the long run, I think we should add an option to processSQLNamePattern
>>> to use OR instead of AND, which would fix both this problem as well as
>>> pg_dump's.  I don't think that's important enough to stall this patch.

Agreed. This patch is useful in itself. This option would be nice to
have, and this routine interface would begin to grow too many boolean
switches to my taste so I'd rather use some flags instead.

The patch is doing its work, however I have spotted an issue in the
format of the dumps generated. Each time an excluded database is
processed its set of SET queries (from _doSetFixedOutputState) as well
as the header "PostgreSQL database dump" gets generated. I think that
this data should not show up.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-12-19 05:05:30 Re: [PATCH] Improve tab completion for CREATE TABLE
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-12-19 04:35:16 Re: Use an enum for RELKIND_*?