On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 04:13:34PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > >Davy Durham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>So, if this patch is not acceptable as-is, what would you feel about > >>this: > >> I could enhance the -t/--table=NAME option to accept more than a > >> simple NAME. Rather it could accept something in the form: > >> > > > > > >> --table=<table_name>:<where-clause expression> > >> > > > >Well, that would at least address the complaint that it doesn't scale > >to multiple tables, but the whole thing still seems like a frammish > >that will never see enough use to justify maintaining it. > > > >(BTW, what will you do with a table whose name contains a colon?) > > > > > > > > ISTM this would be better off waiting until we turn large parts of > pg_dump into a library, as has been often discussed, at which point it > should be relatively simple to write a custom client to do what the OP > wants. I agree that it does not at all belong in pg_dump.
I can't imagine many of my clients ever writing another C program or even being willing to pay me to do so. While modularizing pg_dump is a fine idea, I don't think it addresses the same set of use cases and users as this proposal. -dg -- David Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches