On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Vibhor Kumar escribió:
>> On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>>> On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>>>>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>>>>>> I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
>>>>>> matches what pg_dump would do if you did not specify the table or schema.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't have time slots to fix that by then, I will have a look at
>>>>> fixing that while in beta.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a patch against 9.1. If there is agreement with the approach
>>>> I'll redo for 9.2 and git head and apply.
>>>
>>> Any objections before I commit this?
>>>
>> Since, nobody has picked this one.
>>
>> If there is no objection,then I can test this patch against 9.1 & 9.2.
>
> Thanks, yes, that would be helpful. Things to think about are whether
> this affect anything other than tables marked as config for any
> extension, and whether behavior is sane for them, (i.e. the "condition"
> thingy works right etc).
Sure, I will test and verify this.
> The whole matter of extension configuration table has been rather
> tricky to get right ... hopefully we're not ending up with them being
> more broken now.
Thanks & Regards,
Vibhor Kumar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Blog:http://vibhork.blogspot.com
