On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Uh ... what in that is creating the already-extant parent?
/me looks embarrassed. Never mind. I didn't read what you wrote carefully enough. >> I think one answer to the original complaint might be to add a new >> flag to pg_dump, something like --recursive-selection, maybe -r for >> short, which makes --table, --exclude-table, and --exclude-table-data >> cascade to inheritance descendents. > > Yeah, you could do it like that. Another way to do it would be to > create variants of all the selection switches, along the lines of > "--table-all=foo" meaning "foo plus its children". Then you could > have some switches recursing and others not within the same command. > But maybe that's more flexibility than needed ... and I'm having a > hard time coming up with nice switch names, anyway. I don't think that's as good. It's a lot more typing than what I proposed and I don't think anyone is really going to want the flexibility. > Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that it's fine to leave this as a > future feature. If we've gotten away without it this long for > inherited tables, it's unlikely to be critical for partitioned tables. +1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
