Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables
Date: 2015-04-07 20:33:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised
>> views to the pg_restore -t flag.

> I think this is a good change. Any concerns?

Are we happy with pg_dump/pg_restore not distinguishing these objects
by type? It seems rather analogous to letting ALTER TABLE work on views
etc. Personally I'm fine with this, but certainly some people have
complained about that approach so far as ALTER is concerned. (But the
implication would be that we'd need four distinct switches, which is
not an outcome I favor.)

Also, I think you missed "MATERIALIZED VIEW DATA".

Also, shouldn't there be a documentation update?

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-04-07 20:39:04 Re: pg_rewind and log messages
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-04-07 20:33:19 Re: deparsing utility commands