On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of sáb dic 18 02:21:41 -0300 2010: >> Here's an attempt to summarize the remaining issues with this patch >> that I know about. I may have forgotten something, so please mention >> it if you notice something missing. >> >> 1. pg_dump needs an option to control whether unlogged tables are >> dumped. --no-unlogged-tables seems like the obvious choice, assuming >> we want the default to be to dump them, which seems like the safest >> option. > > If there are valid use cases for some unlogged tables being dumped and > some others not, would it make sense to be able to specify a pattern of > tables to be dumped or skipped?
Well, if you want to dump a subset of the tables in your database, you can already do that. I think that adding a pattern to --no-unlogged-tables (or whatever we end up calling it) would be an unnecessary frammish. There's no particular reason to think that unlogged tables are going to be so widely used or that concerns about which ones are going to be so widespread that we should do something here when we don't even have much simpler things like --function, which IMHO would extremely useful. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
