Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised >> views to the pg_restore -t flag.
> I think this is a good change. Any concerns?
Are we happy with pg_dump/pg_restore not distinguishing these objects by type? It seems rather analogous to letting ALTER TABLE work on views etc. Personally I'm fine with this, but certainly some people have complained about that approach so far as ALTER is concerned. (But the implication would be that we'd need four distinct switches, which is not an outcome I favor.)
The pg_dump documentation for the equivalent "-t" switch states:
"Dump only tables (or views or sequences or foreign tables) matching table"
Does pg_dump need to be updated to address materialized views here?
Does pg_restore need to be updated to address sequences here?
