Vibhor Kumar escribió: > On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > > > On 03/14/2013 05:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > >> On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > >>> Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: > >>>> I think it should dump the user data portion, especially since that > >>>> matches what pg_dump would do if you did not specify the table or schema. > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> If you don't have time slots to fix that by then, I will have a look at > >>> fixing that while in beta. > >> > >> Here is a patch against 9.1. If there is agreement with the approach > >> I'll redo for 9.2 and git head and apply. > > > > Any objections before I commit this? > > > Since, nobody has picked this one. > > If there is no objection,then I can test this patch against 9.1 & 9.2.
Thanks, yes, that would be helpful. Things to think about are whether this affect anything other than tables marked as config for any extension, and whether behavior is sane for them, (i.e. the "condition" thingy works right etc). The whole matter of extension configuration table has been rather tricky to get right ... hopefully we're not ending up with them being more broken now. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
