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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers