Re: [PATCH] add option to pg_dumpall to exclude tables from the dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Juergen Hannappel <juergen(at)juergen-hannappel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add option to pg_dumpall to exclude tables from the dump
Date: 2016-08-18 22:01:14
Message-ID: 27262.1471557674@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/18/16 2:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems pretty dubious to me, in particular that the identical -T
>> option will be passed willy-nilly into the pg_dump runs for every
>> database. That seems more likely to be a foot-gun than something useful.

> I agree, but I think mandating a database name (which I suppose could be
> *) with the specifiers would solve that issue.

Hmm, something like "-T dbname1:pattern1 -T dbname2:pattern2" ?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2016-08-18 22:04:10 Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Keep indexes sorted by heap physical location
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2016-08-18 21:44:57 Re: Curing plpgsql's memory leaks for statement-lifespan values