| From: | "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump |
| Date: | 2018-07-13 02:46:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A6F14E2E7@G01JPEXMBKW04 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>I noticed one more thing: pg_dumpall.c doesn't really need to prohibit
>--on-conflict-do-nothing without --insert. Its existing validation rejects illegal
>combinations of the settings that are *not* passed on to pg_dump. It seems OK to
>just pass those on and let pg_dump complain. For example, if you say "pg_dumpall
>--data-only --schema-only", it's pg_dump that complains, not pg_dumpall. I think we
>should do the same thing here.
Thank you for the clarification. I didn't give thought to pg_dumpall internally running pg_dump.
>Pushed, with those changes.
Thanks!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-13 02:54:12 | Re: requested timeline ... does not contain minimum recovery point ... |
| Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2018-07-13 02:38:45 | Re: requested timeline ... does not contain minimum recovery point ... |