| From: | Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik(at)postgres(dot)ai>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavlo Golub <Pavlo(dot)Golub(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: PoC: pg_dump --filter-data <file> (like Oracle Where Clause on RMAN for specific tables) |
| Date: | 2025-08-16 22:48:41 |
| Message-ID: | CACLU5mThoC1AH4ZDYQ1+8PiAmGkaNriA2jLQCXX8ZziHEuRqtQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 12:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > We have a handful of tables that have 90% of the data going back 30
> years.
> > We NEVER restore this data to Dev or Staging. We used a special RMAN
> > backup where these tables had a "WHERE clause" applied to them during the
> > backup/dump process.
>
> Have you considered partitioning these tables by date and then not
> dumping the older partitions? That would fit into existing
> functionality a lot better.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I had not considered it until now. But because we are talking about only
keeping 7 - 28 days of decades of data.
I would assume that window would require a bit of work in production to
maintain, making it a tough sell to the client.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kirk Wolak | 2025-08-16 22:56:12 | Re: PoC: pg_dump --filter-data <file> (like Oracle Where Clause on RMAN for specific tables) |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2025-08-16 22:34:19 | Re: Add RESPECT/IGNORE NULLS and FROM FIRST/LAST options |