Tom Lane wrote: > > 3) It would require yet more arguments to pg_dump. The moment we start > > allowing > > regular expression characters that are also valid identifier names (e.g. "." > > and "_") we'll need some way to tell pg_dump whether we mean a literal > > search > > or a regular expression one. > > However, we are going to have that problem in spades if we do a > half-baked pattern feature now and then want to improve it later. > I think it'd be better to get it right the first time. > > In practice, I don't think that LIKE-style patterns (% and _ wildcards) > will pose a serious compatibility problem if we just decree that the > -n and -t switches now take patterns rather than plain names. I agree > that regex-style patterns would open some gotchas, but what's wrong with > standardizing on LIKE patterns?
I am concerned about the number of object names that have an underscore. It seems regex would have fewer conflicts, even though it has more special characters. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
