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
> >> 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
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: