Re: pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only
Date
Msg-id 54825.184.180.152.2.1321398893.squirrel@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only  (Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only  (Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, November 12, 2011 8:56 pm, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/2011 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera<alvherre@commandprompt.com>  writes:
>>> The "--section=data --section=indexes" proposal seems very reasonable
>>> to
>>> me -- more so than "--sections='data indexes'".
>> +1 ... not only easier to code and less squishily defined, but more like
>> the existing precedent for other pg_dump switches, such as --table.
>>
>>
>
>
> Here is a patch for that for pg_dump. The sections provided for are
> pre-data, data and post-data, as discussed elsewhere. I still feel that
> anything finer grained should be handled via pg_restore's --use-list
> functionality. I'll provide a patch to do the same switch for pg_restore
> shortly.
>
> Adding to the commitfest.
>


Updated version with pg_restore included is attached.

cheers

andrew

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: FlexLocks
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: ISN was: Core Extensions relocation