| From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |
| Date: | 2000-11-08 15:48:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20001109024850.02f0a6d0@mail.rhyme.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 10:15 8/11/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>I like
>
> CREATE DATABASE foo WITH TEMPLATE 'template0'
>
>better than a SET command.
Just seems like we'd be forcing non-standard syntax on ourselves when/if
CREATE DATABASE becomes CREATE SCHEMA; I would assume that the two
statements would become synonymous? Since this code is only for pg_dump,
polluting CREATE DATABASE even further seems like a bad idea. No big deal,
though.
[Minor aside: would 'FROM TEMPLATE' be better?]
Question: if I issue a "CREATE DATABASE foo WITH TEMPLATE 'my-favorite-db'"
will I just get a copy of the specified database, including data?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-08 15:56:23 | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-08 15:15:08 | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |