Re: Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Guillaume Lelarge |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAECtzeX5H6+5h05BB-0ORdjJuWhb7tY_hDHxZccRiOMpuoAeOg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump
|
List | pgsql-general |
Hi,
--
2016-11-03 8:22 GMT+01:00 amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>:
Hi Guillaume,
With your v2 patch, -B options working as expected but --no-blobs
options is still unrecognized, this happens is because of you have
forgot to add entry for 'no-blobs' in long_options[] array.
You're right. v3 (attached) fixes this.
Apart from this concern patch looks good to me. Thanks
Thanks.
Regards,
Amul
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> 2016-10-23 20:44 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>:
>>
>> 2016-10-23 20:37 GMT+02:00 Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>:
>>>
>>> På søndag 23. oktober 2016 kl. 19:15:17, skrev Andreas Joseph Krogh
>>> <andreas@visena.com>:
>>>
>>> På søndag 23. oktober 2016 kl. 17:06:57, skrev Guillaume Lelarge
>>> <guillaume@lelarge.info>:
>>>
>>> 2016-03-08 21:06 GMT+01:00 Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>:
>>>>
>>>> På tirsdag 08. mars 2016 kl. 21:03:01, skrev David G. Johnston
>>>> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh
>>>> <andreas@visena.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> På tirsdag 08. mars 2016 kl. 17:38:04, skrev Joshua D. Drake
>>>>> <jd@commandprompt.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/08/2016 08:02 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
>>>>> > På tirsdag 08. mars 2016 kl. 16:57:01, skrev Tom Lane
>>>>> > <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
>>>>> > <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com> writes:
>>>>> > > What I'm looking for is "inverse -b" in an otherwise complete
>>>>> > dump. Any plans
>>>>> > > to add that?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [ shrug... ] Nobody ever asked for it before.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > regards, tom lane
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It surely helps testing production-datasets which contain lots of
>>>>> > BLOBs
>>>>> > where one wants to dump the production-data into a test-env. We have
>>>>> > >1TB databases containing > 95% blobs so it would help us
>>>>> > tremendously
>>>>> > to have this option.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have quite a few customers that would benefit from the ability to not
>>>>> have blobs present in dumps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great! So how do we proceed to get "--no-blobs" added to pg_dump?
>>>>> Maybe CommandPrompt and Visena should co-fund development of such an
>>>>> addition, if it's accepted by -hackers?
>>>>> We'd be willing to pay for such an addition for the 9.5 branch, as a
>>>>> patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately this doesn't qualify as a bug fix - it is a new feature
>>>> and thus is ineligible for inclusion in official 9.5
>>>>
>>>> David J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course. That's why I mentioned that, if possible, an unofficial patch
>>>> to 9.5 could be developed, funded partly by Visena (my company). Given that
>>>> someone is willing to do this of course.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That probably should look like the patch attached. It applies cleanly on
>>> HEAD, and works AFAICT. If this patch seems interesting enough, I'll add it
>>> to the next commit fest (note for myself, update the ref/pg_dump.sgml
>>> documentation file).
>>>
>>> For Andreas' information, it also applies on 9.5, though I didn't check
>>> if it worked afterwards.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 for adding it to the commitfest.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Done, https://commitfest.postgresql.org/11/833/
>>
>>> It's almost scary how simple this patch is and noone ever got around to
>>> implement it.
>>
>>
>> Nobody had the time (like me, till now) or the motivation.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, I'll test it on 9.5 soon.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's totally OK for me to use 9.6 (now that it's released) to dump 9.5
>>> DBs, so I'm all good with this patch, thanks!
>>
>>
>> Remember that, if it gets commited, it'll be for next release (aka 10),
>> and not 9.6 and earlier.
>>
>
> New patch, this time with the documentation.
>
>
--
Attachment
pgsql-general by date: