Tom Lane wrote:
> Davy Durham <pubaddr5@davyandbeth.com> writes:
>
>> So, if this patch is not acceptable as-is, what would you feel about
>> this:
>> I could enhance the -t/--table=NAME option to accept more than a
>> simple NAME. Rather it could accept something in the form:
>>
>
>
>> --table=<table_name>:<where-clause expression>
>>
>
> Well, that would at least address the complaint that it doesn't scale
> to multiple tables, but the whole thing still seems like a frammish
> that will never see enough use to justify maintaining it.
>
> (BTW, what will you do with a table whose name contains a colon?)
>
>
>
ISTM this would be better off waiting until we turn large parts of
pg_dump into a library, as has been often discussed, at which point it
should be relatively simple to write a custom client to do what the OP
wants. I agree that it does not at all belong in pg_dump.
cheers
andrew
