Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?! - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?!
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobgeU9T6A59gNuZY1hhh54xwWZ6segQoAu6qMnvzpOx1A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?!  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump -s dumps data?!  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
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?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: pasman pasmański
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions btree_gist and cube collide?
Next
From: durumdara
Date:
Subject: Extending Session / Logged User info