On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 03:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, this seems to have some pluses and no negative comments, so it seems
>>> worth going forward. Do we want an equivalent pg_restore option?
>>
>> I'm not sure it's *as* important for pg_restore, since I can easily use
>> a manifest to avoid restoring data for a single table. So I guess it's
>> a question of "how hard is it to add it?"
>>
>
> The short answer is "more work than I want to put in to this." pg_restore
> doesn't have any of pg_dump's infrastructure for handling table name
> patterns, nor for excluding tables. So I think all that would remain a TODO.
> (A good beginner project, maybe).
>
> A slightly updated patch is attached, the main change being that I removed
> use of a short option and only support the long name option. "-D" didn't
> seem sufficiently mnemonic to me. I'll add this to the November commitfest,
> but I'd like to get it committed ASAP as it will simplify setting up the
> -pre and -post data patches.
Instead of:
do NOT dump data for the named table(s)
How about:
dump only schema for the named table(s)
I'm also a bit concerned about the relationship between this and the
existing -s option. It seems odd that you use --schema-only to get
the behavior database-wide, and --exclude-table-data to get it for
just one table. Is there some way we can make that a bit more
consistent?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
