From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposed patch: make pg_dump --data-only consider FK constraints |
Date: | 2008-09-07 23:33:47 |
Message-ID: | 20080907233347.GR16005@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Gregory Stark (stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com) wrote:
> The other reason to think NOTICE might be better is that it's something which,
> if it occurs once, will always occur for that database. So a sysadmin will
> become inured to seeing WARNING on his backups. Are there any other warning
> conditions which could occur spontaneously that this would mask?
Impartial on NOTICE vs. WARNING, it could go either way for me.
> One minor thought -- surely the main use case for data-only dumps is for
> importing into another brand of database. In which case the message seems a
> bit awkward -- it could talk generically about disabling or dropping the
> constraints and then have a hint to indicate how to do that with Postgres.
I have to disagree strongly with this. We have multiple PG instances
and often have cause to copy between them using data-only pg_dump. On
the other side, I've never used pg_dump (data-only or not) to generate
something to load data into a different database.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2008-09-08 00:22:29 | Re: [PATCH] allow has_table_privilege(..., 'usage') on sequences |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-07 23:21:04 | Re: Proposed patch: make pg_dump --data-only consider FK constraints |