2016-10-23 20:37 GMT+02:00 Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com>:
> På søndag 23. oktober 2016 kl. 19:15:17, skrev Andreas Joseph Krogh < > andr...@visena.com>: > > På søndag 23. oktober 2016 kl. 17:06:57, skrev Guillaume Lelarge < > guilla...@lelarge.info>: > > 2016-03-08 21:06 GMT+01:00 Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com>: >> >> På tirsdag 08. mars 2016 kl. 21:03:01, skrev David G. Johnston < >> david.g.johns...@gmail.com>: >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> >> wrote: >> >>> På tirsdag 08. mars 2016 kl. 17:38:04, skrev Joshua D. Drake < >>> j...@commandprompt.com>: >>> >>> On 03/08/2016 08:02 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: >>> > På tirsdag 08. mars 2016 kl. 16:57:01, skrev Tom Lane < >>> t...@sss.pgh.pa.us >>> > <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>>: >>> > >>> > Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> writes: >>> > > What I'm looking for is "inverse -b" in an otherwise complete >>> > dump. Any plans >>> > > to add that? >>> > >>> > [ shrug... ] Nobody ever asked for it before. >>> > >>> > regards, tom lane >>> > >>> > It surely helps testing production-datasets which contain lots of BLOBs >>> > where one wants to dump the production-data into a test-env. We have >>> > >1TB databases containing > 95% blobs so it would help us tremendously >>> > to have this option. >>> >>> I have quite a few customers that would benefit from the ability to not >>> have blobs present in dumps. >>> >>> >>> Great! So how do we proceed to get "--no-blobs" added to pg_dump? >>> Maybe CommandPrompt and Visena should co-fund development of such an >>> addition, if it's accepted by -hackers? >>> We'd be willing to pay for such an addition for the 9.5 branch, as a >>> patch. >>> >> >> Unfortunately this doesn't qualify as a bug fix - it is a new feature >> and thus is ineligible for inclusion in official 9.5 >> >> David J. >> >> >> Of course. That's why I mentioned that, if possible, an unofficial patch >> to 9.5 could be developed, funded partly by Visena (my company). Given that >> someone is willing to do this of course. >> >> > > That probably should look like the patch attached. It applies cleanly on > HEAD, and works AFAICT. If this patch seems interesting enough, I'll add it > to the next commit fest (note for myself, update the ref/pg_dump.sgml > documentation file). > > For Andreas' information, it also applies on 9.5, though I didn't check if > it worked afterwards. > > > +1 for adding it to the commitfest. > > > Done, https://commitfest.postgresql.org/11/833/ It's almost scary how simple this patch is and noone ever got around to > implement it. > > Nobody had the time (like me, till now) or the motivation. > > Thanks, I'll test it on 9.5 soon. > > > It's totally OK for me to use 9.6 (now that it's released) to dump 9.5 > DBs, so I'm all good with this patch, thanks! > Remember that, if it gets commited, it'll be for next release (aka 10), and not 9.6 and earlier. -- Guillaume. http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com
