From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Addition of pg_dump --no-publications |
Date: | 2017-05-13 02:58:49 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTHWEyKkvrhU1DkP5FNfL7uC4XSn_e=Vnatq4o7od6j9A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 5/11/17 21:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I imagine that pg_dump -s would be the basic operation that users
>>> would do first before creating a subcription on a secondary node, but
>>> what I find surprising is that publications are dumped by default. I
>>> don't find confusing that those are actually included by default to be
>>> consistent with the way subcriptions are handled, what I find
>>> confusing is that there are no options to not dump them, and no
>>> options to bypass their restore.
>>>
>>> So, any opinions about having pg_dump/pg_restore --no-publications?
>>
>> And that's really a boring patch, giving the attached.
>
> committed
Thanks.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-13 03:06:46 | Re: Hash Functions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-13 02:01:28 | Re: multi-column range partition constraint |