From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option |
Date: | 2018-12-19 20:55:51 |
Message-ID: | 0cb923ce-b384-f0f6-5f90-7a3ebd42f660@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/18/18 11:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:26:41PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 11/18/18 1:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> On 11/17/18 9:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> In the long run, I think we should add an option to processSQLNamePattern
>>>> to use OR instead of AND, which would fix both this problem as well as
>>>> pg_dump's. I don't think that's important enough to stall this patch.
> Agreed. This patch is useful in itself. This option would be nice to
> have, and this routine interface would begin to grow too many boolean
> switches to my taste so I'd rather use some flags instead.
>
> The patch is doing its work, however I have spotted an issue in the
> format of the dumps generated. Each time an excluded database is
> processed its set of SET queries (from _doSetFixedOutputState) as well
> as the header "PostgreSQL database dump" gets generated. I think that
> this data should not show up.
I'll take a look.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-12-19 21:29:20 | Re: insensitive collations |
Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2018-12-19 20:50:10 | A few new options for vacuumdb |