Re: Table data exclusion patch for pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Vadim Trochinsky <me(at)vadim(dot)ws>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Table data exclusion patch for pg_dump
Date: 2009-05-01 19:33:50
Message-ID: 22327.1241206430@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why wouldn't you just use -s ?

> You might want the whole schema and data for most but not all of the
> tables (e.g. you might leave out a large session table for a web app).

The use-case seems pretty thin to me, and the potential for shooting
oneself in the foot rather large. We routinely get complaints, for
example, from people who do partial dumps and then find out they don't
restore because of foreign key constraints. This looks like mostly
a larger-gauge version of that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2009-05-01 19:37:19 Re: Throw some low-level C scutwork at me
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-05-01 19:25:22 Re: Table data exclusion patch for pg_dump