| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
| Date: | 2006-10-06 14:30:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20485.1160145001@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> However, ISTM that a similar facility for fine grained control could
> fairly easily be built into pg_dump.
Yeah ... later.
The way I envision it is that the schema-related switches are fine for
selecting things at the level of whole schemas, and the table-related
switches are fine for selecting individual tables, and what we lack are
inclusion/exclusion switches that operate on other kinds of individual
objects. Somebody can design and implement those later, if the itch
strikes. What we have to do today is make sure that the interaction of
schema and table switches is such that an extension in that direction
will fit in naturally.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stevenson, Bob | 2006-10-06 14:30:51 | unsubscribe |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-06 14:23:47 | Re: Storing MemoryContext Pointers |