| From: | "George Pavlov" <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Tony Caduto" <tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com>, "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore question (-T and -t) | 
| Date: | 2009-01-01 01:21:32 | 
| Message-ID: | 8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A860346491A@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Why not just try it! Answer: all -t switches after the first one are
ignored. (And, no, "pg_restore --help" does not mention that). However
with -l and -L, you have a much more powerful mechanism for specifying
exactly which objects you want restored.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tony Caduto
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:50 PM
> To: pgsql general
> Subject: [GENERAL] pg_restore question (-T and -t)
> 
> Hi,
> does anyone know if you can do multiple
> -T or -t   (restore named trigger, restore name table) switches?
> 
> In the docs for pg_restore it does not specify if it will accept more
> than one, but in the pg_dump docs the -n and -t switches allow
> multiples.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> tony
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Gainty | 2009-01-01 01:37:28 | Re: pg_restore question (-T and -t) | 
| Previous Message | Tim Hart | 2008-12-31 22:57:37 | General subselect question |