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 later. 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 completeness. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
