Tom Lane 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. > 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.
Not sure that's reasonable. We have at least one extension in contrib that creates objects in pg_catalog. ISTM that's enough precedent that more could be created in the future. (Now of course extensions get special treatment anyway, but my point is that there's no prohibition against creating objects in pg_catalog.) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers