|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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
|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|