| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
| Date: | 2012-01-30 17:43:46 |
| Message-ID: | 4F26D6D2.10507@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 01/30/2012 09:23 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
>
> I think I explained it in previous mails, and if not - sorry, but
> I clearly can't explain good enough - the point is that with the way how
> extensions now work, they are useless for providing way to create
> tables that will store data, in case you would ever want dump without
> this data.
So in summary; if an extension creates a user table you want access to
that table(schema and data) via pg_dump, outside the extension
mechanism, without resorting to marking it as a configuration table. Is
that correct ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> depesz
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-30 17:45:09 | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-30 17:28:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-30 17:45:09 | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2012-01-30 17:28:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not immutable? |