* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > I think the real question is if "-n '*'" should still exclude > > 'pg_catalog'. Fixing the issue with defined pseudo types is wonderful, > > but aren't you going to end up with a dump you can't restore, > > regardless? > > Yeah, perhaps so. The thread on -general has also produced the > information that pg_dump -t '*' tries to dump system catalogs as if > they were user tables, which is another pretty useless bit of behavior.
Indeed. > So maybe we should drop the hunk you've got there (which frankly seems a > bit of a kluge) and instead hot-wire things so that stuff in pg_catalog > is excluded even if it would otherwise match the inclusion lists. An idealistic viewpoint might be that we should provide a way to actually create defined pseudo-types and then make pg_dump work with them, but I have a hard time seeing why that would be worth the effort. One might also argue that we should have a way of dealing with every type of object which exists and defined psuedo-types seem to be the only thing left out. I agree that it seems like the best idea is to just hot-wire pg_dump to exclude pg_catalog, though I'm inclined to suggest that we just exclude it from pattern matches. We know that objects sometimes end up in pg_catalog which aren't really supposed to be there and there might be other reasons to want to dump it out, so having 'pg_dump -n pg_catalog' still do its best to dump out what's been asked for seems reasonable. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature