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                        |               |  (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

Reply via email to