Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-16 Thread Greg Smith
On 12/12/2011 04:35 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Should all be fixed. Revised patch attached. There were two successful test results here and only minor things noted to fix, which are all cleaned up now. This seems ready for a committer now; I'm just now sure if you want to do it yourself or

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 12/16/2011 02:43 PM, Greg Smith wrote: On 12/12/2011 04:35 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Should all be fixed. Revised patch attached. There were two successful test results here and only minor things noted to fix, which are all cleaned up now. This seems ready for a committer now; I'm

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-12 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 12/08/2011 09:18 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote: Updated version with pg_restore included is attached. The patch applies with some fuzz by now but compiles without errors or warnings. The feature just works, it is not

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-08 Thread Joachim Wieland
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Updated version with pg_restore included is attached. The patch applies with some fuzz by now but compiles without errors or warnings. The feature just works, it is not adding a lot of new code, basically it parses the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-08 Thread Josh Berkus
On 12/8/11 9:18 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote: If you ask pg_restore to restore a section out of an archive which doesn't have this section, there is no error and the command just succeeds. This is what I expected and I think it's the right thing to do but maybe others think that there should be

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-07 Thread Josh Berkus
Note that this feature has the odd effect that some constraints are loaded at the same time as the tables and some are loaded with the post-data. This is consistent with how text-mode pg_dump has always worked, but will seem odd to the user. This also raises the possibility of a future

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-07 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Note that this feature has the odd effect that some constraints are loaded at the same time as the tables and some are loaded with the post-data. This is consistent with how text-mode pg_dump has always worked, but will seem odd to the user. This also

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-12-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 12/07/2011 11:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkusj...@agliodbs.com writes: Note that this feature has the odd effect that some constraints are loaded at the same time as the tables and some are loaded with the post-data. This is consistent with how text-mode pg_dump has always worked,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-11-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Joshua Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Here is a patch for that for pg_dump. The sections provided for are pre-data, data and post-data, as discussed elsewhere. I still feel that anything finer grained should be handled via pg_restore's --use-list

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-11-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On Sat, November 12, 2011 8:56 pm, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 08/26/2011 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herreraalvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: The --section=data --section=indexes proposal seems very reasonable to me -- more so than --sections='data indexes'. +1 ... not only easier to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-11-15 Thread Joshua Berkus
Here is a patch for that for pg_dump. The sections provided for are pre-data, data and post-data, as discussed elsewhere. I still feel that anything finer grained should be handled via pg_restore's --use-list functionality. I'll provide a patch to do the same switch for pg_restore

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-11-13 Thread Matteo Beccati
Hi Andrew, On 13/11/2011 02:56, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Here is a patch for that for pg_dump. The sections provided for are pre-data, data and post-data, as discussed elsewhere. I still feel that anything finer grained should be handled via pg_restore's --use-list functionality. I'll provide a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-11-12 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/26/2011 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herreraalvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: The --section=data --section=indexes proposal seems very reasonable to me -- more so than --sections='data indexes'. +1 ... not only easier to code and less squishily defined, but more like the existing

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/03/2011 04:49 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes: Oh, I meant just having it create separate custom format files for each database. As shell scripts all over the world have been doing for years, but it would be nice if it was simply built in. I guess

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-09-02 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes: It's off topic. But I think custom format would require a major mangling to be able to handle a complete cluster. This isn't just a simple matter of programming, IMNSHO. Oh, I meant just having it create separate custom format files for each

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-09-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/01/2011 09:40 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: It's off topic. But I think custom format would require a major mangling to be able to handle a complete cluster. This isn't just a simple matter of programming, IMNSHO. Oh, I meant just having it create separate custom format files for each

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-09-01 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 It's off topic. But I think custom format would require a major mangling to be able to handle a complete cluster. This isn't just a simple matter of programming, IMNSHO. Oh, I meant just having it create separate custom format files for

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-31 Thread Jim Nasby
On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 08/26/2011 04:46 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I knew there would be some bike-shedding about how we specify these things, which is why I haven't written docs yet. While we're debating what shade

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of miƩ ago 31 16:45:59 -0300 2011: On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 08/26/2011 04:46 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I knew there would be some bike-shedding about how we specify these things,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/31/2011 04:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Well, the Unix approach is to use tools that do one thing well to build up more complex tools. Making pg_dump run some external command to inject things into the stream seems like the wrong thing given this philosophy. Use pg_dump to get the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-27 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: For anything more fine-grained, I'm inclined to say that people need to roll their own. pg_restore's --list and --use-list give you extremely fine-grained control. I have working scripts which use these for example to filter out londiste and pgq

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-27 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Well, notwithstanding my well known love of perl, that strikes me as spending a pound to save a penny. And custom format dumps rock ;-) Also, your recipe above is buggy, BTW. A CREATE INDEX statement might well not be the first item in

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-27 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/27/2011 06:56 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Once these new flags and the ability to custom format dump pg_dumpall is done, I'll have very little left to complain about with pg_dump :) It's off topic. But I think custom format would require a major mangling to be able to handle a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/25/2011 06:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: But we could also add these switches to pg_dump too if people feel it's worthwhile. I haven't looked but the logic should not be terribly hard. Something like the attached, in fact, which seems pretty simple. cheers andrew diff --git

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: But we could also add these switches to pg_dump too if people feel it's worthwhile. I haven't looked but the logic should not be terribly hard. Something like the attached, in fact, which seems pretty simple. It seems

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Jeff Davis
On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 12:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: --sections='predata data' --sections='postdata' --sections='index' Agreed. After command line options reach a certain level of complexity, I think it's worth looking for a more general way to express them. Regards, Jeff Davis --

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/26/2011 12:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote: But we could also add these switches to pg_dump too if people feel it's worthwhile. I haven't looked but the logic should not be terribly hard. Something like the attached,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I don't have anything in principle against your '--sections=foo bar' suggestion, but it would be more work to program. Simpler, and probably more consistent with how we do other things, would be allowing multiple

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie ago 26 15:36:36 -0300 2011: On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I don't have anything in principle against your '--sections=foo bar' suggestion, but it would be more work to program. Simpler, and probably more

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Jim Nasby
On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I knew there would be some bike-shedding about how we specify these things, which is why I haven't written docs yet. While we're debating what shade of yellow to paint the shed... My actual use case is to be able to be able to inject SQL

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: The --section=data --section=indexes proposal seems very reasonable to me -- more so than --sections='data indexes'. +1 ... not only easier to code and less squishily defined, but more like the existing precedent for other pg_dump switches, such

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/26/2011 04:46 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I knew there would be some bike-shedding about how we specify these things, which is why I haven't written docs yet. While we're debating what shade of yellow to paint the shed... My actual use

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-25 Thread Jim Nasby
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 8/23/11 1:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Attached is an undocumented patch that allows pg_restore to omit post-data items or omit all but post-data items. This has been discussed before, and Simon sent in a patch back on 2008, which has

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/25/2011 06:05 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 8/23/11 1:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Attached is an undocumented patch that allows pg_restore to omit post-data items or omit all but post-data items. This has been discussed before, and Simon sent

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-24 Thread Josh Berkus
On 8/23/11 1:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Attached is an undocumented patch that allows pg_restore to omit post-data items or omit all but post-data items. This has been discussed before, and Simon sent in a patch back on 2008, which has bitrotted some. I'm not sure why it was dropped at the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore --no-post-data and --post-data-only

2011-08-24 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 08/24/2011 08:43 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 8/23/11 1:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Attached is an undocumented patch that allows pg_restore to omit post-data items or omit all but post-data items. This has been discussed before, and Simon sent in a patch back on 2008, which has bitrotted