Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQeDN4SgaTOeefAOZZpJ3gvw+y-DW_8kmnHvrq26o4gKA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Addition of pg_dump --no-publications  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> I imagine that pg_dump -s would be the basic operation that users
> would do first before creating a subcription on a secondary node, but
> what I find surprising is that publications are dumped by default. I
> don't find confusing that those are actually included by default to be
> consistent with the way subcriptions are handled, what I find
> confusing is that there are no options to not dump them, and no
> options to bypass their restore.
>
> So, any opinions about having pg_dump/pg_restore --no-publications?

And that's really a boring patch, giving the attached.
-- 
Michael

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning