Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option

From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option
Date: 2018-11-30 20:43:41
Message-ID: CA+q6zcVAeTSmbAO267E_ejDhv0tEm_zpRX3Tgvk32Umc6z44Bg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 7:41 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 11/17/18 9:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > The comment in expand_dbname_patterns is ungrammatical and mentions
> > "OID" rather than "name", so I suggest
>
> Will fix.
>
> > Other than that, the patch seems fine to me -- I tested and it works as
> > intended.
> >
> > Personally I would say "See also expand_table_name_patterns" instead of
> > "This is similar to code in pg_dump.c for handling matching table names.",
> > as well as mention this function in expand_table_name_patterns' comment.
> > (No need to mention expand_schema_name_patterns, since these are
> > adjacent.) But this is mostly stylistic and left to your own judgement.
> >
> > In the long run, I think we should add an option to processSQLNamePattern
> > to use OR instead of AND, which would fix both this problem as well as
> > pg_dump's. I don't think that's important enough to stall this patch.
>
> Thanks for the review.

Unfortunately judging from cfbot output patch needs to be rebased, could you
please post an updated version with those fixes mentioned above?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2018-11-30 20:46:47 Re: dsa_allocate() faliure
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-11-30 20:15:49 Re: [PATCH] Log CSV by default