From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incorrect syntax when restoring a single table |
Date: | 2024-06-27 15:40:26 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwa3R-rX-c8O+GsG-xT5_TaDT1cy_m0X-Z0Gkz1AWV1Y3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thursday, June 27, 2024, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:05 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > $ pg_restore -v -a -t tapschema.batch_rp4_y2022m08 -Fd --dbname=tap tap
>>
>> I think what you have to do is write -n tapschema -t batch_rp4_y2022m08
>>
>
> That indeed is the solution. Should have seen it in the docs.
>
> pg_restore's use of "-t" is inconsistent with other utilities (pg_dump,
> vacuumdb, reindexdb, clusterdb). That seems to be a design bug.
>
>
I suppose writing the extra matching logic for in-file matching was more
difficult than doing the same when the data sits in catalogs and you have a
regexp operator. Less a bug and more a decision of convenience I suppose.
No pressure from me to change it.
On a related note, the third tip refers to an out-of-support version.
Shouldn’t we do away with it?
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wasim Devale | 2024-06-27 19:39:13 | Fwd: Postgresql 12.19 compatible with RHEL 9 |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2024-06-27 15:23:10 | Re: Incorrect syntax when restoring a single table |