On 01/31/2012 04:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't recall that we thought very hard about what should happen when
>> pg_dump switches are used to produce a selective dump, but ISTM
>> reasonable that if it's "user data" then it should be dumped only if
>> data in a regular user table would be.
>
> Yep.
>
>> What's not apparent to me is whether there's an argument for doing more
>> than that. It strikes me that the current design is not very friendly
>> towards the idea of an extension that creates a table that's meant
>> solely to hold user data --- you'd have to mark it as "config" which
>> seems a bit unfortunate terminology for that case. Is it important to
>> do something about that, and if so what?
>
> Is this anything more than a naming problem?
Seems to me that would be dependent on what the future plans are for the
extension mechanism. There is also the issue of backward compatibility
for those people that are using configuration tables in their extensions
and would like to maintain that separation. I could see adding another
function that is similar and would be used to identify strictly user
data tables.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com
