On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:51:58AM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 01/30/2012 09:45 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:43:46AM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> >>On 01/30/2012 09:23 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I think I explained it in previous mails, and if not - sorry, but
> >>>I clearly can't explain good enough - the point is that with the way how
> >>>extensions now work, they are useless for providing way to create
> >>>tables that will store data, in case you would ever want dump without
> >>>this data.
> >>
> >>So in summary; if an extension creates a user table you want access
> >>to that table(schema and data) via pg_dump, outside the extension
> >>mechanism, without resorting to marking it as a configuration table.
> >>Is that correct ?
> >
> >no.
> >I want to be able to do both:
> >1. dump the data for the table
> >2. dump structure of other tables
> >but not in the same file.
>
> Actually that was what I was saying:)
>
> "..via pg_dump, outside the extension mechanism.."
>
> "..without resorting to marking it as a configuration table.."
>
> Currently the extension mechanism is getting in the way of 1 & 2
> above. What you want is for pg_dump to ignore the extension
> dependency process when you explicitly name a table and the
> operation on it.
no.
marking is irrelevant. marking lets you do one thing, but breaks the
other.
Best regards,
depesz
--
The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it.
http://depesz.com/
