From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump selectively ignores extension configuration tables |
Date: | 2013-03-13 20:07:21 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob33g_G_ZfJknQe=MQtMync=C_FEZQZLvLV2zWH0drDjg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> (reposting" apparently I used a verboten word the first
> time around <sigh>. Sorry for any duplicates)
>
> The -t and -n options of pg_dump do not dump anything from an extension
> configuration table, whereas normal pg_dump will dump the user data.
>
> To see what I mean, in psql do (tested on pg9.2):
> 8<--------------------------
> create extension postgis;
> insert into spatial_ref_sys
> values(42,'test',42,'foo','bar');
> 8<--------------------------
>
> Then in bash do:
> 8<--------------------------
> pg_dump test|grep spatial_ref_sys
> pg_dump -t spatial_ref_sys test|grep spatial_ref_sys
> pg_dump -n public test|grep spatial_ref_sys
> 8<--------------------------
>
> Is this intentional, or oversight, or missing feature?
Hmm. It doesn't seem right to me. It seems like it should either
dump everything, or dump just the user data portion, when the name
matches. Not entirely sure which - probably the latter?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2013-03-13 20:12:21 | Re: pg_dump selectively ignores extension configuration tables |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-13 19:24:49 | Re: Materialized View patch broke pg_dump |