On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't recall that we thought very hard about what should happen when
> pg_dump switches are used to produce a selective dump, but ISTM
> reasonable that if it's "user data" then it should be dumped only if
> data in a regular user table would be.
> What's not apparent to me is whether there's an argument for doing more
> than that. It strikes me that the current design is not very friendly
> towards the idea of an extension that creates a table that's meant
> solely to hold user data --- you'd have to mark it as "config" which
> seems a bit unfortunate terminology for that case. Is it important to
> do something about that, and if so what?
Is this anything more than a naming problem?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-01-31 13:06:51|
|Subject: Re: [v9.2] Add GUC sepgsql.client_label|
|Previous:||From: hubert depesz lubaczewski||Date: 2012-01-31 10:30:14|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump -s dumps data?!|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Marti Raudsepp||Date: 2012-01-31 13:14:54|
|Subject: Re: Why Hard-Coded Version 9.1 In Names?|
|Previous:||From: durumdara||Date: 2012-01-31 12:16:45|
|Subject: Extending Session / Logged User info|