| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump |
| Date: | 2017-06-02 12:15:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ3+UTyyznn95DdQwFu1C0O5eT3Wp+uuKmN6NCGCaSJxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I dunno. What's the actual use-case, other than as a bad workaround
> to a problem we should fix a different way?
Well, that's a fair point. I don't have a specific use case in mind.
However, I also don't think that options for controlling what gets
dumped should be subjected to extreme vetting. On the strength mostly
of my own experiences trying to solve database problems in the real
world, I generally think that pg_dump could benefit from significantly
more options to control what gets dumped. The existing options are
pretty good, but it's not that hard to run into a situation that they
don't cover.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-02 12:18:21 | Re: Default Partition for Range |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-06-02 12:10:58 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |