From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump --with-* options
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 08:14:55 -0700
Message-ID: <ad5175ba8abb9caec1fe59187ad7e54d3d24d797.camel@j-davis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17f63ecf-679c-4337-817f-908bb159701f@eisentraut.org>
References: <7cc52488-f876-4ad3-affd-6e4b0ef0cb09@eisentraut.org>
<aEMLzPQtjRbj2R7X@nathan>
<17f63ecf-679c-4337-817f-908bb159701f@eisentraut.org>
On Thu, 2025-06-12 at 15:47 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> My initial guess was that --with-data can override --no-data. That
> would have been pretty standard "last option wins" behavior. But
> pg_dump rejects that. Personally, I think that is kind of wrong.
Do we have other options that are order-sensitive?
> But in any case, if you want that level of precision, wouldn't it
> make
> more sense to use the --section option?
That's not possible with statistics, because some appear in
SECTION_DATA and some in SECTION_POST_DATA (e.g. stats on indexes,
which are in SECTION_POST_DATA).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql@j-davis.com, peter@eisentraut.org, nathandbossart@gmail.com
Subject: Re: pg_dump --with-* options
In-Reply-To: <ad5175ba8abb9caec1fe59187ad7e54d3d24d797.camel@j-davis.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox