Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun may 09 16:43:10 -0400 2011:
> Now, that's a good point. And I don't expect that pg_dump can
> distinguish between a serial and an sequence with a dependency?
They're the same thing, so no.
--
Álvaro Herrera
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, In
> As a counterexample, consider the case where multiple tables share the
> same sequence. Suppressing one of the tables with -T ought not lead to
> suppressing the sequence.
Now, that's a good point. And I don't expect that pg_dump can
distinguish between a serial and an sequence with a depende
Josh Berkus writes:
> It seems that if I exclude a table using -T, its dependant sequences do
> not get excluded. But if I include it using -t, its dependent sequences
> *do* get included.
> Is there a reason this is a good idea, or is it just an oversight?
It's not immediately clear to me that
All,
Just encountered this:
create table josh ( id serial not null, desc text );
pg_dump -Fc -T josh -f no_josh_dump postgres
pg_dump -Fc -t josh -f josh_dump postgres
pg_restore -d new no_josh_dump
pg_restore -d new josh_dump
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 2645; 1259 49910
