On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> 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 type? It seems rather analogous to letting ALTER TABLE work on views > etc. Personally I'm fine with this, but certainly some people have > complained about that approach so far as ALTER is concerned. (But the > implication would be that we'd need four distinct switches, which is > not an outcome I favor.) >
The pg_dump documentation for the equivalent "-t" switch states: "Dump only tables (or views or sequences or foreign tables) matching table" Does pg_dump need to be updated to address materialized views here? Does pg_restore need to be updated to address sequences here? ISTM that the two should mirror each other. David J.
