| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
| Date: | 2006-10-09 08:33:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1160382781.19368.53.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> We are two months past feature freeze ... adding entirely new features
> to pg_dump is *not* on the table for 8.2.
Ok, clear.
> > The scenario I most care about is to be able to make a complete data
> > base dump (including non-schema objects) while excluding only a few
> > tables.
>
> Isn't this the same as Kris' complaint? Why do you need additional
> dependency analysis to do the above?
Well, I obviously didn't understand well the complete feature as it is
implemented. Now, is what I want (see above) possible with the new
feature, or if I exclude some tables I implicitly loose some other
things too from the dump which normally would be there ? This is my only
concern...
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2006-10-09 08:45:16 | pg_dump VS alter database ... set search_path ... |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2006-10-09 08:19:34 | Re: Casting to money |