Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?!

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: depesz@depesz.com, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@gmail.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2012-01-31T12:36:46Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Add --section option to pg_dump and pg_restore.
- a4cd6abcc901 9.2.0 cited
Add --exclude-table-data option to pg_dump.
- 7b070e896ca8 9.2.0 cited

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.

Yep.

> 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?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company