| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Addition of pg_dump --no-publications |
| Date: | 2017-05-12 01:59:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQeDN4SgaTOeefAOZZpJ3gvw+y-DW_8kmnHvrq26o4gKA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I imagine that pg_dump -s would be the basic operation that users
> would do first before creating a subcription on a secondary node, but
> what I find surprising is that publications are dumped by default. I
> don't find confusing that those are actually included by default to be
> consistent with the way subcriptions are handled, what I find
> confusing is that there are no options to not dump them, and no
> options to bypass their restore.
>
> So, any opinions about having pg_dump/pg_restore --no-publications?
And that's really a boring patch, giving the attached.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pgdump-no-pubs.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-05-12 02:15:51 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-12 01:54:48 | Re: Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |