On 04/04/2013 01:03 PM, Vibhor Kumar wrote:
> I did some testing on this patch with 9.1 and 9.2 source code. Testing
> included following:
> 1. Configured PostGIS with 9.1 and 9.2
> 2. verified all switches of pg_dump with regression db.
> 3. Checked other extensions, to verify if this impacting t
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Vibhor Kumar
wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>
>> On 03/25/2013 08:12 AM, Vibhor Kumar wrote:
>>> Since, nobody has picked this one.
>>>
>>> If there is no objection,then I can test this patch against 9.1 & 9.2.
>>
>> Here are diffs
On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 03/25/2013 08:12 AM, Vibhor Kumar wrote:
>> Since, nobody has picked this one.
>>
>> If there is no objection,then I can test this patch against 9.1 & 9.2.
>
> Here are diffs for 9.1 and 9.2. The previous email was against 9.3 dev.
Thanks J
On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Vibhor Kumar escribió:
>> On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
>> I think it should dump the user
On 03/25/2013 08:12 AM, Vibhor Kumar wrote:
> Since, nobody has picked this one.
>
> If there is no objection,then I can test this patch against 9.1 & 9.2.
Here are diffs for 9.1 and 9.2. The previous email was against 9.3 dev.
Joe
--
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, Pos
Vibhor Kumar escribió:
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> > On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> >>> Joe Conway writes:
> I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
> matches what pg_
On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>>> Joe Conway writes:
I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
matches what pg_dump would do if you did not specify
On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Joe Conway writes:
>>> I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
>>> matches what pg_dump would do if you did not specify the table or schema.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> If you don't have t
On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
>> I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
>> matches what pg_dump would do if you did not specify the table or schema.
>
> +1
>
> If you don't have time slots to fix that by then, I will have a look
Joe Conway writes:
> I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that
> matches what pg_dump would do if you did not specify the table or schema.
+1
If you don't have time slots to fix that by then, I will have a look at
fixing that while in beta.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontain
On 03/13/2013 03:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Is this intentional, or oversight, or missing feature?
>
> Hmm. It doesn't seem right to me. It seems like it should either
> dump everything, or dump just the user data portion, when the name
> matches. Not entirely sure which - probably the latter
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> (reposting" apparently I used a verboten word the first
> time around . Sorry for any duplicates)
>
> The -t and -n options of pg_dump do not dump anything from an extension
> configuration table, whereas normal pg_dump will dump the user data.
12 matches
Mail list logo
