Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications
Date
Msg-id 20170512140804.GA10499@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:59:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I imagine that pg_dump -s would be the basic operation that users
> > would do first before creating a subcription on a secondary node, but
> > what I find surprising is that publications are dumped by default. I
> > don't find confusing that those are actually included by default to be
> > consistent with the way subcriptions are handled, what I find
> > confusing is that there are no options to not dump them, and no
> > options to bypass their restore.
> >
> > So, any opinions about having pg_dump/pg_restore --no-publications?
> 
> And that's really a boring patch, giving the attached.

While it's consistent with surrounding code, I find the use of ints to
express what is in essence a boolean condition puzzling.  Any
insights?

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PROVE_FLAGS
Next
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION,query cancellations and slot handling)