On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> 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_restore, since I can easily use >> a manifest to avoid restoring data for a single table. So I guess it's >> a question of "how hard is it to add it?" >> > > The short answer is "more work than I want to put in to this." pg_restore > doesn't have any of pg_dump's infrastructure for handling table name > patterns, nor for excluding tables. So I think all that would remain a TODO. > (A good beginner project, maybe). > > 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 committed ASAP as it will simplify setting up the > -pre and -post data patches.
Instead of: do NOT dump data for the named table(s) How about: dump only schema for the named table(s) 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 some way we can make that a bit more consistent? -- 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
