Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> It seems that if I exclude a table using -T, its dependant sequences do
> not get excluded. But if I include it using -t, its dependent sequences
> *do* get included.
> Is there a reason this is a good idea, or is it just an oversight?
It's not immediately clear to me that those switches ought to be exact
inverses.
As a counterexample, consider the case where multiple tables share the
same sequence. Suppressing one of the tables with -T ought not lead to
suppressing the sequence.
regards, tom lane
