From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | jim(at)contactbda(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 7.3 Beta Schema and pg_dump |
Date: | 2002-09-16 17:33:13 |
Message-ID: | 28698.1032197593@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> "Jim Buttafuoco" <jim(at)contactbda(dot)com> writes:
> This seems like a "must" have option for pg_dump,
> If I was to create a patch would it make it into 7.3?
>>
>> I dunno ... I'd like to have it too, but it would break our "no new
>> features during beta" rule. Comments anyone?
> I do not believe Jim's premise that it would only take a couple of changes
> to a couple of queries. Clearly, it would take at least some change to
> any query that reads information about schema-aware objects.
Actually, my vision of this was not to change any queries at all, but
just to modify the pg_dump code to include a "select this schema" option.
The infrastructure is already there in pg_dump to mark individual schemas
as to be dumped or not --- we only need a command-line option that can
mark them.
> And what about cross-schema dependencies?
Given the lack of any dependency tracing in pg_dump at the moment, I
think we just leave that on the user's head for now. It's not any worse
than the behavior of -t, which is perfectly capable of giving you an
incomplete dump.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | nngodinh | 2002-09-16 17:41:58 | Re: directional marks |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-16 17:26:08 | Re: Proposal for resolving casting issues |