From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David F(dot) Skoll" <dfs(at)roaringpenguin(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option |
Date: | 2004-07-21 14:39:47 |
Message-ID: | 8489.1090420787@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"David F. Skoll" <dfs(at)roaringpenguin(dot)com> writes:
> How about this:
> pg_dump -t t1 -- Dump table t1 in any schema
> pg_dump -n s1 -- Dump all of schema s1
> pg_dump -t t1 -n s1 -- Dump t1 in s1
> pg_dump -t t1 -t t2 -n s1 -- Dump s1.t1 and s1.t2
> pg_dump -t t1 -t t2 -n s1 -n s2 -- Dump s1.t1, s1.t2, s2.t1 and s2.t2
Why not
pg_dump -t t1 -- Dump table t1 in any schema
pg_dump -n s1 -- Dump all of schema s1
pg_dump -t s1.t1 -- Dump t1 in s1
pg_dump -t s1.t1 -t s2.t2 -- Dump s1.t1 and s2.t2
pg_dump -t t1 -t t2 -n s1 -n s2 -- Dump s1.t1, s1.t2, s2.t1 and s2.t2
That is, the rules are:
- if any -t switches appear, only tables matching (any one of)
those switches are dumped
- if any -n switches appear, only objects in (any one of)
those schemas are dumped
- a -t switch can be name only or schema.name
The cross-product semantics you're proposing can't implement my fourth
example.
I really dislike the idea of switch ordering making a difference...
> We also probably should not warn about missing tables, because it's
> likely that the full cartesian product of schemas and tables won't
> exist.
Agreed. If any -t or -n switches appear, then warn only if *no* objects
get selected.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-21 14:53:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-07-21 14:26:35 | Re: check point segments leakage ? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-21 14:53:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-21 14:30:23 | Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions |