Mariel Cherkassky <mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com> writes:
> I tried to restore the sequence also by specifying it in the -t flag but
> got the same error. Can you explain why it isn't appearing in the plain
> text backup but it does appear in the output of pg_restore -l ?
Hmm, worked for me, for small values of "work":
pg_restore -t specific_table -t specific_table_id_seq ...
This creates the table and the sequence, but fails to establish any
connection between them. The trouble here is that pg_restore's "-t"
is a very low-level, literal-minded switch. Supposing you have
create table specific_table(id serial primary key, effectiveid int);
If you do a pg_dump -Fc and then use "pg_restore -l" to see what
entries are in the dump archive, you will get something like
197; 1259 102953 TABLE public specific_table postgres
196; 1259 102951 SEQUENCE public specific_table_id_seq postgres
3023; 0 0 SEQUENCE OWNED BY public specific_table_id_seq postgres
2891; 2604 102956 DEFAULT public specific_table id postgres
3016; 0 102953 TABLE DATA public specific_table postgres
3024; 0 0 SEQUENCE SET public specific_table_id_seq postgres
2893; 2606 102958 CONSTRAINT public specific_table specific_table_pkey postgres
You need to select *all* of those items if you want to restore the
table fully, but "-t specific_table" is stupid and selects only
the "TABLE specific_table" one (and the TABLE DATA, I think).
The most reliable way to do what you want is to do
"pg_restore -l mydb.dump >mydb.list", edit mydb.list down to
just the items you want, and then use "pg_restore -L mydb.list ..."
to select those items.
Not too user-friendly, I'm afraid, especially since pg_dump's "-t"
switch is quite a bit smarter about what to dump. But nobody's put
any work into making pg_restore's switch better. In the meantime, maybe
you could use "pg_dump -t" if you know you just want the one table.
regards, tom lane