On Dec 14, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Thanks. Committed with that changed, although we seem to be getting
> altogether too obsessive about white space, IMNSHO.
If that’s all there is to complain about, I think it’s a pretty good sign. ;-P
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailin
On 14 December 2011 14:31, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Thanks. Committed with that changed, although we seem to be getting
> altogether too obsessive about white space, IMNSHO.
I agree, but I think it's important that we judge patches by a
consistent standard. Right now, for better or worse, that st
On 12/14/2011 06:28 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Not sure that I have a lot to add here, but I am officially listed as
a reviewer, which is a responsibility that I don't want to shirk.
In my opinion, this patch is obviously useful. I don't find the
asymmetry that it will create with pg_restore t
Not sure that I have a lot to add here, but I am officially listed as
a reviewer, which is a responsibility that I don't want to shirk.
In my opinion, this patch is obviously useful. I don't find the
asymmetry that it will create with pg_restore to be troubling, so I'd
favour committing it as-is.
On 12/08/2011 11:36 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 12/08/2011 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Ah, hmm. Well, maybe it's fine the way that you have it. But I'd be
tempted to at least add a sentence to the sgml documentation for each
option referring to the other, e.g. "To dump only schema for al
On 12/08/2011 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm also a bit concerned about the relationship between this and the
existing -s option. It seems odd that you use --schema-only to get
the behavior database-wide, and --exclude-table-data to ge
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I'm also a bit concerned about the relationship between this and the
>> existing -s option. It seems odd that you use --schema-only to get
>> the behavior database-wide, and --exclude-table-data to get it for
>> just one table. Is there s
On 11/04/2011 10:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
A slightly updated patch is attached, the main change being that I removed
use of a short option and only support the long name option. "-D" didn't
seem sufficiently mnemonic to me. I'll add this to the November commitfest,
but I'd like to get it com
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 03:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, this seems to have some pluses and no negative comments, so it seems
>>> worth going forward. Do we want an equivalent pg_restore option?
>>
>> I'm not sure it's *as* important for pg_res
On 09/02/2011 03:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
OK, this seems to have some pluses and no negative comments, so it seems
worth going forward. Do we want an equivalent pg_restore option?
I'm not sure it's *as* important for pg_restore, since I can easily use
a manifest to avoid restoring data for
> OK, this seems to have some pluses and no negative comments, so it seems
> worth going forward. Do we want an equivalent pg_restore option?
I'm not sure it's *as* important for pg_restore, since I can easily use
a manifest to avoid restoring data for a single table. So I guess it's
a question
On 08/24/2011 05:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
For those who are (like my clients :-) ) anxious to get their hands on
this immediately, a backport patch is also attached which applies to 9.0
sources, and applies with offsets to 8.4 sources.
FWIW, I have immediate use for this in creating cut-down
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> FWIW, I have immediate use for this in creating cut-down versions of
> databases for testing purposes. It'll eliminate a couple pages of shell
> scripts for me.
Speaking of "cut-down versions", I have recently been using pg_sample,
and been
> For those who are (like my clients :-) ) anxious to get their hands on
> this immediately, a backport patch is also attached which applies to 9.0
> sources, and applies with offsets to 8.4 sources.
FWIW, I have immediate use for this in creating cut-down versions of
databases for testing purpos
Attached is an undocumented patch that allows a user to have pg_dump
exclude data but not DDL for a table. One use case for this is a very
large table that changes infrequently, and for which dumping data
frequently would be wasteful and unnecessary. This is especially useful
in conjunction w
15 matches
Mail list logo
