Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.)
True, and given the lack of prior complaints, it might be better to
leave well enough alone here. What the -general thread was actually
suggesting is that pg_dump needs a way to forcibly omit blobs; the
question about behavior of the pattern-match switches was a sideshow.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
