Horton
Menu

Thread

  1. Can I use pg_dump to save a sequence for a table that is not also being saved?

    Shaheed Haque <shaheedhaque@gmail.com> — 2026-03-17T13:58:32Z

    Hi,

I observe when using pg_dump like this:

pg_dump -h localhost -p 5432 -U dbcoreuser -Ft -f abc.tar --no-privileges
> --data-only \

--exclude-table="public.(jobs|queues|results) \

--table=public.django_migrations \

--table=public.paiyroll_input \

--table=public.*_id_seq \

--verbose foo


that the dumped data contains the content of the two tables, and the two
sequences.  (FWIW, the above command is actually submitted via a Python
subprocess call, so quoting should not be an issue). The verbose output
confirms this:

pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
> pg_dump: processing data for table "public.paiyroll_input"
> pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq
> pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET paiyroll_input_id_seq


Note that the instance "foo" contains many other tables, whose sequences I
was expecting to be included. To confirm this, if I drop the second
"--table", the verbose log shows only:

pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
> pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq


My conclusion is that - despite what I understood from the pg_dump docs -
the use of "--table=public.*id_seq" does not include all the sequences in
fo, only those named by another --table.

Did I misunderstand, or formulate the command incorrectly?

Thanks, Shaheed

  2. Re: Can I use pg_dump to save a sequence for a table that is not also being saved?

    Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2026-03-17T14:37:02Z

    On 3/17/26 6:58 AM, Shaheed Haque wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I observe when using pg_dump like this:
> 
>     pg_dump -h localhost -p 5432 -U dbcoreuser -Ft -f abc.tar --no-
>     privileges --data-only \
> 
>     --exclude-table="public.(jobs|queues|results) \ 
> 
>     --table=public.django_migrations \ 
> 
>     --table=public.paiyroll_input \
> 
>     --table=public.*_id_seq \
> 
>     --verbose foo
> 
> 
> that the dumped data contains the content of the two tables, and the two 
> sequences.  (FWIW, the above command is actually submitted via a Python 
> subprocess call, so quoting should not be an issue). The verbose output 
> confirms this:
> 
>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.paiyroll_input"
>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq
>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET paiyroll_input_id_seq
> 
> 
> Note that the instance "foo" contains many other tables, whose sequences 
> I was expecting to be included. To confirm this, if I drop the second 
> "--table", the verbose log shows only:
> 
>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq
> 
> 
> My conclusion is that - despite what I understood from the pg_dump docs 
> - the use of "--table=public.*id_seq" does not include all the sequences 
> in fo, only those named by another --table.
> 
> Did I misunderstand, or formulate the command incorrectly?

My bet is this due to a dependency of paiyroll_input_id_seq on 
public.paiyroll_input.

Provide the output, in psql, of:

\d public.paiyroll_input

> 
> Thanks, Shaheed


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

  3. Re: Can I use pg_dump to save a sequence for a table that is not also being saved?

    Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2026-03-17T14:55:36Z

    On 3/17/26 7:37 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 3/17/26 6:58 AM, Shaheed Haque wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I observe when using pg_dump like this:
>>
>>     pg_dump -h localhost -p 5432 -U dbcoreuser -Ft -f abc.tar --no-
>>     privileges --data-only \
>>
>>     --exclude-table="public.(jobs|queues|results) \
>>     --table=public.django_migrations \
>>     --table=public.paiyroll_input \
>>
>>     --table=public.*_id_seq \
>>
>>     --verbose foo
>>
>>
>> that the dumped data contains the content of the two tables, and the 
>> two sequences.  (FWIW, the above command is actually submitted via a 
>> Python subprocess call, so quoting should not be an issue). The 
>> verbose output confirms this:
>>
>>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
>>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.paiyroll_input"
>>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq
>>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET paiyroll_input_id_seq
>>
>>
>> Note that the instance "foo" contains many other tables, whose 
>> sequences I was expecting to be included. To confirm this, if I drop 
>> the second "--table", the verbose log shows only:
>>
>>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
>>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq
>>
>>
>> My conclusion is that - despite what I understood from the pg_dump 
>> docs - the use of "--table=public.*id_seq" does not include all the 
>> sequences in fo, only those named by another --table.
>>
>> Did I misunderstand, or formulate the command incorrectly?
> 
> My bet is this due to a dependency of paiyroll_input_id_seq on 
> public.paiyroll_input.
> 
> Provide the output, in psql, of:
> 
> \d public.paiyroll_input

To demonstrate:

CREATE TABLE seq_test (
     line_id integer GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,
     bool_fld boolean,
     str_fld varchar
);



\d seq_test
                               Table "public.seq_test"
   Column  |       Type        | Collation | Nullable | 
Default
----------+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------------------------
  line_id  | integer           |           | not null | generated always 
as identity
  bool_fld | boolean           |           |          |
  str_fld  | character varying |           |          |
Indexes:
     "seq_test_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (line_id)

SELECT pg_get_serial_sequence('public.seq_test', 'line_id');
    pg_get_serial_sequence
-----------------------------
  public.seq_test_line_id_seq


pg_dump -d plant_grower_db -U db_admin -p 5482 -t seq_test --data-only

--
-- PostgreSQL database dump
--

[...]

COPY public.seq_test (line_id, bool_fld, str_fld) FROM stdin;
\.


--
-- Name: seq_test_line_id_seq; Type: SEQUENCE SET; Schema: public; 
Owner: db_admin
--

SELECT pg_catalog.setval('public.seq_test_line_id_seq', 1, false);

[...]

--
-- PostgreSQL database dump complete
--


pg_dump -d plant_grower_db -U db_admin -p 5482 -t seq_test_line_id_seq 
--data-only

--
-- PostgreSQL database dump
--

[...]

-- No sequence data.

[...]


--
-- PostgreSQL database dump complete
--


> 
>>
>> Thanks, Shaheed
> 
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

  4. Re: Can I use pg_dump to save a sequence for a table that is not also being saved?

    Shaheed Haque <shaheedhaque@gmail.com> — 2026-03-17T17:28:29Z

    Hi Adrian,

Thanks for the kind replies, but it seems my email was not very clear...

I was hoping, possibly foolishly, that specifying the wildcard in
"--table=public.*id_seq" would dump the  matched sequences, irrespective of
whether the associated table data was being dumped. Is there a way to get
just the sequences?

It is very possible that I am barking up the wrong tree with pg_dump, and
what I need is some queries using the information_schema.

Thanks, Shaheed

On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 14:55, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
wrote:

> On 3/17/26 7:37 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > On 3/17/26 6:58 AM, Shaheed Haque wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I observe when using pg_dump like this:
> >>
> >>     pg_dump -h localhost -p 5432 -U dbcoreuser -Ft -f abc.tar --no-
> >>     privileges --data-only \
> >>
> >>     --exclude-table="public.(jobs|queues|results) \
> >>     --table=public.django_migrations \
> >>     --table=public.paiyroll_input \
> >>
> >>     --table=public.*_id_seq \
> >>
> >>     --verbose foo
> >>
> >>
> >> that the dumped data contains the content of the two tables, and the
> >> two sequences.  (FWIW, the above command is actually submitted via a
> >> Python subprocess call, so quoting should not be an issue). The
> >> verbose output confirms this:
> >>
> >>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
> >>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.paiyroll_input"
> >>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq
> >>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET paiyroll_input_id_seq
> >>
> >>
> >> Note that the instance "foo" contains many other tables, whose
> >> sequences I was expecting to be included. To confirm this, if I drop
> >> the second "--table", the verbose log shows only:
> >>
> >>     pg_dump: processing data for table "public.django_migrations"
> >>     pg_dump: executing SEQUENCE SET django_migrations_id_seq
> >>
> >>
> >> My conclusion is that - despite what I understood from the pg_dump
> >> docs - the use of "--table=public.*id_seq" does not include all the
> >> sequences in fo, only those named by another --table.
> >>
> >> Did I misunderstand, or formulate the command incorrectly?
> >
> > My bet is this due to a dependency of paiyroll_input_id_seq on
> > public.paiyroll_input.
> >
> > Provide the output, in psql, of:
> >
> > \d public.paiyroll_input
>
> To demonstrate:
>
> CREATE TABLE seq_test (
>      line_id integer GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,
>      bool_fld boolean,
>      str_fld varchar
> );
>
>
>
> \d seq_test
>                                Table "public.seq_test"
>    Column  |       Type        | Collation | Nullable |
> Default
>
> ----------+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------------------------
>   line_id  | integer           |           | not null | generated always
> as identity
>   bool_fld | boolean           |           |          |
>   str_fld  | character varying |           |          |
> Indexes:
>      "seq_test_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (line_id)
>
> SELECT pg_get_serial_sequence('public.seq_test', 'line_id');
>     pg_get_serial_sequence
> -----------------------------
>   public.seq_test_line_id_seq
>
>
> pg_dump -d plant_grower_db -U db_admin -p 5482 -t seq_test --data-only
>
> --
> -- PostgreSQL database dump
> --
>
> [...]
>
> COPY public.seq_test (line_id, bool_fld, str_fld) FROM stdin;
> \.
>
>
> --
> -- Name: seq_test_line_id_seq; Type: SEQUENCE SET; Schema: public;
> Owner: db_admin
> --
>
> SELECT pg_catalog.setval('public.seq_test_line_id_seq', 1, false);
>
> [...]
>
> --
> -- PostgreSQL database dump complete
> --
>
>
> pg_dump -d plant_grower_db -U db_admin -p 5482 -t seq_test_line_id_seq
> --data-only
>
> --
> -- PostgreSQL database dump
> --
>
> [...]
>
> -- No sequence data.
>
> [...]
>
>
> --
> -- PostgreSQL database dump complete
> --
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks, Shaheed
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
>

  5. Re: Can I use pg_dump to save a sequence for a table that is not also being saved?

    Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> — 2026-03-17T17:43:37Z

    
On 3/17/26 10:28 AM, Shaheed Haque wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Thanks for the kind replies, but it seems my email was not very clear...
> 
> I was hoping, possibly foolishly, that specifying the wildcard in "-- 
> table=public.*id_seq" would dump the  matched sequences, irrespective of 
> whether the associated table data was being dumped. Is there a way to 
> get just the sequences?

1) You are using --data-only which means you won't get the sequence 
definition, only the statement to set the sequence value:

SELECT pg_catalog.setval('public.seq_test_line_id_seq', 1, false);

If the sequence is not already in the database instance the above will fail.

2) Sequences are an object that can be created as a stand alone which 
you then use as needed or more generally these days as a dependent 
object to a serial 'type' or a GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY attribute to 
a column. In the latter cases the table needs to exist for the sequence 
to have any relevance. In your case I'm thinking that the sequences you 
want are tied to tables and in the case where you don't dump the 
associated table the sequence data(pg_catalog.setval(...)) is not dumped 
as there is no point.

> 
> It is very possible that I am barking up the wrong tree with pg_dump, 
> and what I need is some queries using the information_schema.

I'm going to say yes you will need to find another method. It would help 
to know exactly what it is you want.
> 
> Thanks, Shaheed

>     -- 
>     Adrian Klaver
>     adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
>