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 | 3452905.1648233431@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: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> pg_dump never dumps system objects, so I don't see a need for >> a switch to tell it not to. > I considered pg_class to be a system object, which was dumped under -t '*' Oh! You're right, the --table switches will include system objects. That seems like a bug TBH. Even if it's intentional, it's surely not behavior we want for functions. You can somewhat easily exclude system catalogs from matching --table since they all have names starting with "pg_", but it'd be way more painful for functions because (a) there are thousands and (b) they're not very predictably named. I'd vote for changing the behavior of --table rather than trying to be bug-compatible with this decision. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: