Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Richard Huxton
Subject Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types
Date
Msg-id 45263C37.6000209@archonet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
>> Testing out the new pg_dump exclusion switches I've found that excluding a 
>> table means that no functions or types will be dumped.  Excluding one 
>> table shouldn't exclude these objects.
> 
> I tend to agree ... will see if I can make it happen.  (I never did get
> around to reviewing that patch, anyway ...)
> 
> One issue is what to do with procedural languages and large objects,
> which don't have any associated schema.  If we treat them as being
> outside all schemas, we'd have semantics like this: dump the PLs and
> blobs unless one or more --schema switches appeared.  Is that OK?

Is there a reason why pg_dump can't do the --list/--use-list flags like 
pg_restore, or is it just a matter of round tuits?

--   Richard Huxton  Archonet Ltd


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: Win XP SP2 SMP locking (8.1.4)
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types