|From:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 11/18/18 1:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 11/17/18 9:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The comment in expand_dbname_patterns is ungrammatical and mentions
>> "OID" rather than "name", so I suggest
>> * The loop below might sometimes result in duplicate entries in the
>> * output name list, but we don't care.
> Will fix.
>> I'm not sure this is grammatical either:
>> exclude databases whose name matches PATTERN
>> I would have written it like this:
>> exclude databases whose names match PATTERN
>> but I'm not sure (each database has only one name, of course, but aren't
>> you talking about multiple databases there?)
> I think the original is grammatical.
>> Other than that, the patch seems fine to me -- I tested and it works as
>> Personally I would say "See also expand_table_name_patterns" instead of
>> "This is similar to code in pg_dump.c for handling matching table
>> as well as mention this function in expand_table_name_patterns' comment.
>> (No need to mention expand_schema_name_patterns, since these are
>> adjacent.) But this is mostly stylistic and left to your own judgement.
>> In the long run, I think we should add an option to
>> to use OR instead of AND, which would fix both this problem as well as
>> pg_dump's. I don't think that's important enough to stall this patch.
> Thanks for the review.
Rebased and updated patch attached.
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Юрий Соколов||2018-11-30 21:30:59||Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance degradation of contended LWLock on NUMA|
|Previous Message||Isaac Morland||2018-11-30 21:01:55||Re: [PATCH] Log CSV by default|