Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I see the group came to the same conclusion. I should have read to the end of the thread. -- 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 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
