From: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths |
Date: | 2002-05-14 06:29:53 |
Message-ID: | 1021357794.1539.95.camel@linda |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 07:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> You have no fear that that "sed" will substitute some places it
> shouldn't have? Also, what makes you think this'll be a "rarely
> used" feature? I'd guess that people load dumps every day into
> databases that have different names than the ones they dumped from.
> Don't see why the same is not likely to be true at the schema level.
A pg_restore option would presumably be more reliable than sed.
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of
death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Psalms 23:4
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2002-05-14 06:35:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug #659: lower()/upper() bug on |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-14 06:08:22 | Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths |