Le jeu. 15 avr. 2021 à 09:58, Michael Paquier a
écrit :
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:31:15AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The name "without_extension_explicit_schema" arose because that test
> differs
> > from the "without_extension" test by adding --schema=public. The test
> named
> >
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:31:15AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> The name "without_extension_explicit_schema" arose because that test differs
> from the "without_extension" test by adding --schema=public. The test named
> "without_extension_implicit_schema" differs from "without_extension" by adding
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:38:17AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:00:34AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:43:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> - If extschema='public', "pg_dump -e plpgsql --schema=public" includes
> >>> commands to dump
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:00:34AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:43:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> - If extschema='public', "pg_dump -e plpgsql --schema=public" includes
>>> commands to dump the relation data. This surprised me. (The
>>> --schema=public
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:43:11PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:08:02PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I noticed the patch's behavior for relations that are members of non-dumped
> > extensions and are also registered using pg_extension_config_dump(). It
> > depends on
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:08:02PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> I noticed the patch's behavior for relations that are members of non-dumped
> extensions and are also registered using pg_extension_config_dump(). It
> depends on the schema:
>
> - If extschema='public', "pg_dump -e plpgsql" makes no
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 07:42:11PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> I think this is a bug in $SUBJECT.
Sorry for the late reply. I intend to answer to that and this is
registered as an open item, but I got busy with some other things.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:08:02PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:37:44AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:02:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Okay. So I have looked at that stuff in details, and after fixing
> > > all the issues reported
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:37:44AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:02:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Okay. So I have looked at that stuff in details, and after fixing
> > all the issues reported upthread in the code, docs and tests I am
> > finishing with the
Le mer. 31 mars 2021 à 02:37, Michael Paquier a
écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:02:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Okay. So I have looked at that stuff in details, and after fixing
> > all the issues reported upthread in the code, docs and tests I am
> > finishing with the attached.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:02:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay. So I have looked at that stuff in details, and after fixing
> all the issues reported upthread in the code, docs and tests I am
> finishing with the attached. The tests have been moved out of
> src/bin/pg_dump/ to
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:37:02AM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Anyways. Yeah, I know we're near feature freeze. This feature would be nice
> to have, but I don't feel strongly about it. I think this feature is
> currently lacking in PostgreSQL but I don't much care if it makes it to 14
> or
Le lun. 15 mars 2021 à 11:32, Julien Rouhaud a écrit :
> Le lun. 15 mars 2021 à 18:25, Michael Paquier a
> écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 06:21:55PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> > Is that a feature you really want to see in pg14? If yes and if you're
>> sure
>> > you won't have time
Le lun. 15 mars 2021 à 18:25, Michael Paquier a
écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 06:21:55PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Is that a feature you really want to see in pg14? If yes and if you're
> sure
> > you won't have time to work on the patch within 2 weeks I can take care
> of
> >
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 06:21:55PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Is that a feature you really want to see in pg14? If yes and if you're sure
> you won't have time to work on the patch within 2 weeks I can take care of
> addressing all comments.
A lot of things will depend on the feature freeze
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:19:19AM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le lun. 15 mars 2021 à 06:00, Michael Paquier a
> écrit :
>
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:14:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Okay, that sounds fine to me. Thanks for confirming.
> >
> > Guillaume, it has been a
Le lun. 15 mars 2021 à 06:00, Michael Paquier a
écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:14:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Okay, that sounds fine to me. Thanks for confirming.
>
> Guillaume, it has been a couple of weeks since your last update. Are
> you planning to send a new version of
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 08:14:45AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, that sounds fine to me. Thanks for confirming.
Guillaume, it has been a couple of weeks since your last update. Are
you planning to send a new version of the patch?
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:13:06AM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 13:42, Guillaume Lelarge a
> écrit :
>
> > Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 13:41, Guillaume Lelarge
> > a écrit :
> >
> >> Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 05:10, Julien Rouhaud a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jan
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:39:24PM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 à 17:31, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> I haven't read the patch, but the behavior I would expect is:
>>
>> 1. If --extension=pattern is given, then extensions matching the
>> pattern are included in the dump,
Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 à 17:31, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > As presented in this patch, specifying both --extension and
> > --table/--schema means that pg_dump will dump both tables and
> > extensions matching the pattern passed down. But shouldn't extensions
> > not be
Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 à 13:25, Michael Paquier a
écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:13:06AM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > I finally managed to get a working TAP test for my patch. I have no idea
> if
> > it's good, and if it's enough. Anyway, new version of the patch attached.
>
> As
Michael Paquier writes:
> As presented in this patch, specifying both --extension and
> --table/--schema means that pg_dump will dump both tables and
> extensions matching the pattern passed down. But shouldn't extensions
> not be dumped if --table or --schema is used? Combining --schema with
>
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:13:06AM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I finally managed to get a working TAP test for my patch. I have no idea if
> it's good, and if it's enough. Anyway, new version of the patch attached.
As presented in this patch, specifying both --extension and
--table/--schema
Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 13:42, Guillaume Lelarge a
écrit :
> Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 13:41, Guillaume Lelarge
> a écrit :
>
>> Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 05:10, Julien Rouhaud a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:34 PM Guillaume Lelarge
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Anytime soon" was a long
Hi,
Thanks for the review.
Le mer. 3 févr. 2021 à 18:33, Asif Rehman a écrit :
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: not tested
>
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
The patch applies cleanly and looks fine to me. However consider
Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 13:41, Guillaume Lelarge a
écrit :
> Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 05:10, Julien Rouhaud a
> écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:34 PM Guillaume Lelarge
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Anytime soon" was a long long time ago, and I eventually completely
>> forgot this, sorry. As
Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 05:10, Julien Rouhaud a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:34 PM Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
> >
> > "Anytime soon" was a long long time ago, and I eventually completely
> forgot this, sorry. As nobody worked on it yet, I took a shot at it. See
> attached patch.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:34 PM Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
>
> "Anytime soon" was a long long time ago, and I eventually completely forgot
> this, sorry. As nobody worked on it yet, I took a shot at it. See attached
> patch.
Great!
I didn't reviewed it thoroughly yet, but after a quick look it
Hi,
Le sam. 23 mai 2020 à 14:53, Guillaume Lelarge a
écrit :
> Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 16:39, Tom Lane a écrit :
>
>> Guillaume Lelarge writes:
>> > Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 11:26, Daniel Gustafsson a
>> écrit :
>> >> The question is what --extensions should do: only dump any
>> >> extensions
Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 16:39, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge writes:
> > Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 11:26, Daniel Gustafsson a
> écrit :
> >> The question is what --extensions should do: only dump any
> >> extensions that objects in the schema depend on; require a pattern and
> only
> >>
Guillaume Lelarge writes:
> Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 11:26, Daniel Gustafsson a écrit :
>> The question is what --extensions should do: only dump any
>> extensions that objects in the schema depend on; require a pattern and only
>> dump matching extensions; dump all extensions (probably not) or
> On 20 May 2020, at 11:38, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Actually, "dump all extensions" (#3) would make sense to me, and has my vote.
Wouldn't that open for another set of problems when running with --schema=bar
and getting errors on restoring for relocatable extensions like these:
Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 11:26, Daniel Gustafsson a écrit :
> > On 20 May 2020, at 10:06, Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
>
> > I was wondering the reason behind this choice. If anyone knows, I'd be
> happy to hear about it.
>
> Extensions were dumped unconditionally in the beginning, but it was
>
> On 20 May 2020, at 10:06, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I was wondering the reason behind this choice. If anyone knows, I'd be happy
> to hear about it.
Extensions were dumped unconditionally in the beginning, but it was changed to
match how procedural language definitions were dumped.
> *
On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 10:06 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I've discovered something today that I didn't really expect.
> When a user dumps a database with the --schema flag of pg_dump,
> extensions in this schema aren't dumped. As far as I can tell,
> the documentation isn't clear about this
Hello,
I've discovered something today that I didn't really expect. When a user
dumps a database with the --schema flag of pg_dump, extensions in this
schema aren't dumped. As far as I can tell, the documentation isn't clear
about this ("Dump only schemas matching pattern; this selects both the
38 matches
Mail list logo
