Re: Addition of pg_dump --no-publications

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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