From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Odd warning from pg_dump |
Date: | 2016-03-08 17:36:05 |
Message-ID: | 319.1457458565@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So maybe we should drop the hunk you've got there (which frankly seems a
>> bit of a kluge) and instead hot-wire things so that stuff in pg_catalog
>> is excluded even if it would otherwise match the inclusion lists.
> Not sure that's reasonable. We have at least one extension in contrib
> that creates objects in pg_catalog. ISTM that's enough precedent that
> more could be created in the future. (Now of course extensions get
> special treatment anyway, but my point is that there's no prohibition
> against creating objects in pg_catalog.)
True, and given the lack of prior complaints, it might be better to
leave well enough alone here. What the -general thread was actually
suggesting is that pg_dump needs a way to forcibly omit blobs; the
question about behavior of the pattern-match switches was a sideshow.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-08 17:49:24 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-08 17:33:02 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |