Re: Should partial dumps include extensions? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Should partial dumps include extensions?
Date
Msg-id 12961.1306416491@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should partial dumps include extensions?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On tis, 2011-05-24 at 23:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> There's a complaint here
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-05/msg00714.php
>>> about the fact that 9.1 pg_dump always dumps CREATE EXTENSION commands
>>> for all loaded extensions.  Should we change that?  A reasonable
>>> compromise might be to suppress extensions in the same cases where we
>>> suppress procedural languages, ie if --schema or --table was used
>>> (see "include_everything" switch in pg_dump.c).

>> Making it work like procedural languages seems sensible to me.

> The same problem still exists for foreign data wrappers, servers, and
> user mappings.  It should probably be changed in the same way.

No objection here, but I'm not going to go do it ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Another attempt at vacuum improvements
Next
From: "MauMau"
Date:
Subject: patch for distinguishing PG instances in event log