Hi all,
thanks for the feedback. I updated the patch now.
Alvaro Herrera [2006-02-25 13:47 -0300]:
> > I improved the patch now to only ignore TABLE DATA for existing tables
> > if '-X ignore-existing-tables' is specified. I also updated the
> > documentation.
>
> Is this really an appropiate de
I will clean it up before applying.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Pitt [2006-02-19 14:39 +0100]:
>> Since this changes the behaviour of pg_restore, this should probably
>> become an option, e. g. -D / --ignore-existing-table-data. I'll do
>> this if you agree to the principle of the current patch.
> I improved the
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Martin Pitt [2006-02-19 14:39 +0100]:
> > Since this changes the behaviour of pg_restore, this should probably
> > become an option, e. g. -D / --ignore-existing-table-data. I'll do
> > this if you agree to the principle of the current patch.
>
> I improved the
Hi again,
Martin Pitt [2006-02-19 14:39 +0100]:
> Since this changes the behaviour of pg_restore, this should probably
> become an option, e. g. -D / --ignore-existing-table-data. I'll do
> this if you agree to the principle of the current patch.
I improved the patch now to only ignore TABLE DATA
Hi again,
Meh, the list server didn't like the attached test script, so I put it
here:
http://people.debian.org/~mpitt/test-pg_restore-existing.sh
Martin
--
Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org
In a world wi
Hi again,
Tom Lane [2006-02-18 14:34 -0500]:
> >>> The core problem is that we want to not restore objects (mainly
> >>> tables) in the destination database which already exist.
> >>
> >> Why is this a problem? It's already the default behavior --- the
> >> creation commands fail but pg_restore k
Hi Tom!
Tom Lane [2006-02-18 14:34 -0500]:
> Hm. Rather than a variant of the -L facility (which is hard to use,
> and I don't see your proposal being much easier), maybe what's wanted
> is just a flag saying "don't try to restore data into any table whose
> creation command fails". Maybe that s
Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane [2006-02-18 13:32 -0500]:
>> Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The core problem is that we want to not restore objects (mainly
>>> tables) in the destination database which already exist.
>>
>> Why is this a problem? It's already the def
Hi Tom!
Tom Lane [2006-02-18 13:32 -0500]:
> Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The core problem is that we want to not restore objects (mainly
> > tables) in the destination database which already exist.
>
> Why is this a problem? It's already the default behavior --- the
> creation co
Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The core problem is that we want to not restore objects (mainly
> tables) in the destination database which already exist.
Why is this a problem? It's already the default behavior --- the
creation commands fail but pg_restore keeps going.
Hi PostgreSQL developers!
On [1], Stephen and I are currently discussing how to provide seamless
automatic version upgrades of PostgreSQL databases with third party
modules like PostGIS.
The core problem is that we want to not restore objects (mainly
tables) in the destination database which alre
12 matches
Mail list logo
