Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The existing patch's behavior is that "the rightmost switch wins", ie, if an
> object's name matches more than one pattern then it is included or excluded
> according to the rightmost switch it matches. This is, erm, poorly
> documented, but it seems like useful behavior so I don't have an objection
> myself.

I don't know, it sounds like it's the source of the confusion you identify

My first thought is that the rule should be to apply all the inclusion
switches (implicitly including everything if there are none), then apply all
the exclusion switches.

That leads to including non-schema objects only if there are no schema
inclusion switches. Which seems pretty logical since if you're explicitly
including objects then you'll only expect objects explicitly included to be
dumped and you'll quickly realize there's no switch to bring in those
non-schema objects. Maybe there should be a switch to include them just for

  Gregory Stark

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to