Thread: BUG #8435: PGAdmin backup: obect list missing objects

BUG #8435: PGAdmin backup: obect list missing objects

From
marta.mihoff@dal.ca
Date:
The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:      8435
Logged by:          mihoff marta
Email address:      marta.mihoff@dal.ca
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.9
Operating system:   windows 7 64 bit
Description:

Using the backup option (right click on an object) and then selecting the
Objects tab: Not all objects appears in the list. This is true for versions
1.14.3 and the most recent version 1.16.1 downloaded today. I have a
database called otn with over 100 schema. I wish to back up several tables
from one schema, but that schema called "pgs" does not appear in the list of
schema. When I change the name of the schema to "psg" then it does appear.
Obviously related to some restriction on use of PG. I created several schema
starting with pg. None show up in the object list. This is a scientific
research project, at Dalhousie University, where the PGS means something and
we do not want to change it to get this thing to work. I suspect this bug
exists for all versions which use this backup function.

Re: BUG #8435: PGAdmin backup: obect list missing objects

From
Tom Lane
Date:
marta.mihoff@dal.ca writes:
> Using the backup option (right click on an object) and then selecting the
> Objects tab: Not all objects appears in the list. This is true for versions
> 1.14.3 and the most recent version 1.16.1 downloaded today. I have a
> database called otn with over 100 schema. I wish to back up several tables
> from one schema, but that schema called "pgs" does not appear in the list of
> schema. When I change the name of the schema to "psg" then it does appear.

You should probably report this on the pgadmin mailing list, I'm not sure
how many of those folk read the core-server bug list.

I would expect PGAdmin to hide schemas beginning with "pg_", since those
are reserved as system schema names.  It sounds like someone got the test
wrong and is checking for just "pg" not "pg_".  I'm suspicious there's a
LIKE test coded as LIKE 'pg_%', which is wrong because "_" is a
metacharacter in LIKE patterns ...

            regards, tom lane