Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3166751.1648168819@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > The extension object type does not seem to have gotten the > --exclude-extension capability that it would need to conform to the general > design exemplified by --table and hopefully extended out to the routine > object types. We're not going to instantly build out every feature that would be suggested by a roadmap. However, I see in what you just wrote a plausible roadmap: eventually, all or most object types should have pg_dump switches comparable to, and syntactically aligned with, the --table and --exclude-table switches. The expectation would be that if any of these selective-dump switches appear, then only objects matching at least one of them (and not matching any --exclude switch) will be dumped. So for example pg_dump --table=foo* --function=bar* dumps tables whose names start with foo, and functions whose names start with bar, and nothing else. (We'd need to spell out how these things interact with --schema, too.) In this scheme, Lætitia's desired functionality should be spelled "--function=*", or possibly "--routine=*", depending on what she wanted to happen with procedures. Thoughts? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: