[BUGS] BUG #8435: PGAdmin backup: obect list missing objects
The following bug has been logged on the website: Bug reference: 8435 Logged by: mihoff marta Email address: marta.mih...@dal.ca PostgreSQL version: 9.1.9 Operating system: windows 7 64 bit Description: Using the backup option (right click on an object) and then selecting the Objects tab: Not all objects appears in the list. This is true for versions 1.14.3 and the most recent version 1.16.1 downloaded today. I have a database called otn with over 100 schema. I wish to back up several tables from one schema, but that schema called pgs does not appear in the list of schema. When I change the name of the schema to psg then it does appear. Obviously related to some restriction on use of PG. I created several schema starting with pg. None show up in the object list. This is a scientific research project, at Dalhousie University, where the PGS means something and we do not want to change it to get this thing to work. I suspect this bug exists for all versions which use this backup function. -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
Re: [BUGS] BUG #8435: PGAdmin backup: obect list missing objects
marta.mih...@dal.ca writes: Using the backup option (right click on an object) and then selecting the Objects tab: Not all objects appears in the list. This is true for versions 1.14.3 and the most recent version 1.16.1 downloaded today. I have a database called otn with over 100 schema. I wish to back up several tables from one schema, but that schema called pgs does not appear in the list of schema. When I change the name of the schema to psg then it does appear. You should probably report this on the pgadmin mailing list, I'm not sure how many of those folk read the core-server bug list. I would expect PGAdmin to hide schemas beginning with pg_, since those are reserved as system schema names. It sounds like someone got the test wrong and is checking for just pg not pg_. I'm suspicious there's a LIKE test coded as LIKE 'pg_%', which is wrong because _ is a metacharacter in LIKE patterns ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
