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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Should partial dumps include extensions?
Date
Msg-id 1306412684.25317.0.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should partial dumps include extensions?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Should partial dumps include extensions?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix
Next
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Another attempt at vacuum improvements