Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option

Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> > > No, it doesn't. I can look into that if you like. The patch was
> > > entirely to satisfy a need some of our customers have. The -T switch
> > > does fill a real need for our customers; our product has a couple of tables
> > > that aren't critical if they aren't backed up, but as the product evolves,
> > > we occasionally add more tables. So it's easier to use a -T switch to
> > > say what *not* to back up, than multiple -t switches to say what to back up.
> >
> > Well, since you wrote the patch, you'd be better off munging it. Read
> > Tom's comments and see what you can come up with. There's been no
> > decision made yet though on what changes to make however.
>
> I'd also move the should_dump.c file into an existing file and make sure
> the patch is against CVS HEAD, not 7.4.3.

Agreed.

> Also, there's a copyright statement at the top, retaining copyright with
> the author. Does anyone have an issue with that?

Yes, no need for it. We discourage that.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073