From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
Date: | 2006-10-08 01:22:19 |
Message-ID: | 20061008012219.GH9928@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 10:28:21PM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > The existing patch's behavior is that "the rightmost switch wins",
> > ie, if an object's name matches more than one pattern then it is
> > included or excluded according to the rightmost switch it matches.
> > This is, erm, poorly documented, but it seems like useful behavior
> > so I don't have an objection myself.
>
> I don't know, it sounds like it's the source of the confusion you
> identify later.
>
> My first thought is that the rule should be to apply all the
> inclusion switches (implicitly including everything if there are
> none), then apply all the exclusion switches.
+1 :)
Order-dependent switches are a giant foot gun.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yourfriend | 2006-10-08 04:54:10 | The improvement for psql of 8.2beta1 not implemented under Windows |
Previous Message | Chris Campbell | 2006-10-08 01:04:26 | Use non-deprecated APIs for dynloader/darwin.c |