Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-07-02 Thread Tom Lane
Craig Ringer writes: > I think you're right that sequences should be included by pg_restore since > they are by pg_dump, though. So v3 patch attached. You forgot "SEQUENCE SET" :-(. I fixed that and adjusted the docs a bit more and committed. regards, tom lane -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-06-30 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hi I am sending a review of this trivial patch. 1.This patch enables the possibility to restore only selected view, mat. view, foreign table or sequence. Currently the option -t works with tables only. All other relation like objects are quietly ignored. With this patch, the check on type is enha

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-04-09 Thread Craig Ringer
On 8 April 2015 at 05:05, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Peter Eisentraut writes: >> > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised >> >> views to the pg_restore -t flag. >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-04-09 Thread Craig Ringer
On 8 April 2015 at 04:33, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised > >> views to the pg_restore -t flag. > > > I think this is a good change. Any concerns? > > Are we happy wi

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-04-07 Thread David G. Johnston
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised > >> views to the pg_restore -t flag. > > > I think this is a good change. Any concerns? > > Are we ha

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-04-07 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised >> views to the pg_restore -t flag. > I think this is a good change. Any concerns? Are we happy with pg_dump/pg_restore not distinguishing these objects by

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-04-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 3/31/15 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > Following on from this -bugs post: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/camsr+ygj50tvtvk4dbp66gajeoc0kap6kxfehaom+neqmhv...@mail.gmail.com > > this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised > views to the pg_restore -t flag. I t

[HACKERS] pg_restore -t should match views, matviews, and foreign tables

2015-03-31 Thread Craig Ringer
Following on from this -bugs post: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/camsr+ygj50tvtvk4dbp66gajeoc0kap6kxfehaom+neqmhv...@mail.gmail.com this patch adds support for views, foreign tables, and materialised views to the pg_restore -t flag. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadra