The 2026 Drupal Business Survey is open. Your response will help shape the future of the Drupal business ecosystem.I personally don't have a use case where I use skip-tables tables, and I think most users DO NOT want to use the tables given by default in the skip-tables array: Drupal will not work without the structure of these tables! Instead we should encourage them to use structure-tables. I'm happy to roll a patch but I wanted to have others opinion on this first.
These are the changes I suggest:
- swap these arrays in example.drush.php (so the most used structure-tables comes first)
- add a warning in the docs of skip-tables about the danger of using this when backing up Drupal sites.
Can someone describe a use case where using skip-tables for 'accesslog', 'cache', 'cache_filter', 'cache_menu', 'cache_page', 'history', 'search_dataset', 'search_index', 'search_total', 'sessions', 'watchdog' is useful?
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #4 | 696962_docs_skip_tables_4.patch | 2.3 KB | scor |
Comments
Comment #1
moshe weitzman commentedSure, lets swap them. skip-tables was made before structure-tables feature so thats why it appears first. thats all. skip tables can make sense if you have non drupal tables in the DB. for example, tables that are used for data migration purposes only.
I think a gentle nudge toward structure-tables makes sense. I don't think we need to 'warn' per se.
Comment #2
scor commentedI agree 100%, but why do we then have the whole 'accesslog', 'cache', 'cache_filter', 'cache_menu', 'cache_page', 'history', 'search_dataset', 'search_index', 'search_total', 'sessions', 'watchdog' family assigned to it by default? This can go to, right, with maybe some dummy names instead?
Comment #3
moshe weitzman commentedYeah, dummy tables make sense here.
Comment #4
scor commentedreworded the skip-tables docs to explain the dummy tables.
Comment #5
scor commentedhttp://drupal.org/cvs?commit=320460