On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:07:29PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 06:22:19PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 10:28:21PM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote: > > > 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. > > > > +1 :) > > > > Order-dependent switches are a giant foot gun. > > They're also very powerful, as anyone who's ever used them in a > non-trivial rsync (or rdiff-backup) scenareo can tell you. What if > you want to exclude all of a schema except for a few objects > (granted, right now we're limited to just tables...)?
You make an important distinction here, and thanks for doing that. :) IMHO, order-dependent switches are appropriate for a configuration file and inappropriate for the command line. The pg_hba.conf file is a great example of a place where order dependence is a good idea. Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match