On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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). Sure, I will test and verify this. > 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. Thanks & Regards, Vibhor Kumar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company Blog:http://vibhork.blogspot.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
