Re: [PATCH] add option to pg_dumpall to exclude tables from the dump

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Juergen Hannappel <juergen(at)juergen-hannappel(dot)de>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add option to pg_dumpall to exclude tables from the dump
Date: 2016-08-19 15:38:50
Message-ID: dc45d41a-12cf-cce0-8cff-9d5c32280a1c@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8/18/16 5:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree, but I think mandating a database name (which I suppose could be
>> > *) with the specifiers would solve that issue.
> Hmm, something like "-T dbname1:pattern1 -T dbname2:pattern2" ?

Bingo. Hopefully there'd be some way to consolidate the code between the
two as well...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2016-08-19 15:40:15 Re: anyelement -> anyrange
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-08-19 15:20:06 Re: Re: PROPOSAL: make PostgreSQL sanitizers-friendly (and prevent information disclosure)