From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables |
Date: | 2015-04-07 21:05:26 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb_zfKPj7fYcQNrqtMsFGZmW0E8hXOOqC3U0pj3TZ=eBg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised
> >> views to the pg_restore -t flag.
>
> > I think this is a good change. Any concerns?
>
> Are we happy with pg_dump/pg_restore not distinguishing these objects
> by type? It seems rather analogous to letting ALTER TABLE work on views
> etc. Personally I'm fine with this, but certainly some people have
> complained about that approach so far as ALTER is concerned. (But the
> implication would be that we'd need four distinct switches, which is
> not an outcome I favor.)
>
The pg_dump documentation for the equivalent "-t" switch states:
"Dump only tables (or views or sequences or foreign tables) matching table"
Does pg_dump need to be updated to address materialized views here?
Does pg_restore need to be updated to address sequences here?
ISTM that the two should mirror each other.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2015-04-07 21:11:22 | Re: rare avl shutdown slowness (related to signal handling) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-04-07 20:53:20 | Re: pg_rewind and log messages |