On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The fundamental thing we have to do in order to move forward on this is
> to rethink what's the division of labor between pg_dump and pg_dumpall.
> I find the patch as presented quite unacceptable because it's made no
>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The fundamental thing we have to do in order to move forward on this is
> to rethink what's the division of labor between pg_dump and pg_dumpall.
> I find the patch as presented quite unacceptable because it's made no
>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>> I am also not sure whether pg_dumpall -g and then individual pg_dump
>> is the more widely used approach or not?
> That's the approach I normally recommend.
The
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> I am also not sure whether pg_dumpall -g and then individual pg_dump
> is the more widely used approach or not?
That's the approach I normally recommend.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Rafia Sabih
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:39 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> Still i feel the GRANT statements should be present, as the create
> database statement
> is generated only with -C
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:39 AM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
Still i feel the GRANT statements should be present, as the create
database statement
is generated only with -C option. So attached patch produces the GRANT
statements based
on the -x option.
The attached