Re: pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

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.