Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option
Date: 2018-12-27 21:55:43
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1812272222130.32444@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>> While poking around the dump output, I noticed some unrelated points:
>> * Command "pg_dump" could tell which database is dumped in the output
>> Or "pg_dumpall" could issue a comment line in the output telling which
>> database is being considered.
>> * The database dumps should have an introductory comment, like there
>> is one for roles
> I agree these are unrelated but would be nice to have. Probably having
> pg_dumpall do it would be better. Do you want to do a patch for that?

I do not "want" to do a patch for that:-) Anyway, a small patch is
attached which adds comments to pg_dumpall output sections.

>> * On extensions, the dump creates both the extension and the extension
>> comment. However, ISTM that the extension comment is already created
>> by the extension, so this is redundant:

>> Maybe it should notice that the comment belongs to the extension and
>> need not be updated?
> What if the owner had updated the comment after installing the extension?

Hmmm… This point could apply to anything related to an extension, which
could be altered by the owner in any way…


Attachment Content-Type Size
dumpall-output-more-verbose-1.patch text/x-diff 1.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-12-27 22:04:41 Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2018-12-27 21:42:46 Re: Cache relation sizes?