On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It appears that the command "pgsql -t foo.bar" will not dump the table
> > bar in the schema foo. I saw a patch a while back to add schema support
> > to pg_dump (with the --namespace option), but I did not see a fix for
> > this.
>
> IMO that's not a bug; you should spell it pg_dump -n foo -t bar.
> The other way is ambiguous with a table named "foo.bar".
Oh, I didn't realize that dots are allowed in table names. But is there
an unambiguous way to specify a specific table in a database if you
don't know your search path? Would that be "foo"."bar" (table bar in
schema foo) as opposed to "foo.bar" (table foo.bar in current schema, if
extant)? If so, then pg_dump -t '"foo"."bar"' would do the right thing,
I'd hope.
If there's no way to unambiguously specify a table name, that rather
worries me
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
