Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
| От | Laetitia Avrot |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAB_COdgyJOjoxBOHpnVyNNaCx7SGphtNdHrmFv7GSGU4H9eAcQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Michael,
Le mar. 25 janv. 2022 à 06:49, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 03:23:07PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Looking at this thread I think it makes sense to go ahead with this patch. The
> filter functionality worked on in another thread is dealing with cherry-picking
> certain objects where this is an all-or-nothing switch, so I don't think they
> are at odds with each other.
Including both procedures and functions sounds natural from here. Now
I have a different question, something that has not been discussed in
this thread at all. What about patterns? Switches like --table or
--extension are able to digest a psql-like pattern to decide which
objects to dump. Is there a reason not to have this capability for
this new switch with procedure names? I mean to handle the case
without the function arguments, even if the same name is used by
multiple functions with different arguments.
Thank you for this suggestion.
We have --schema-only flag to export only the structure and then we have --schema=<pattern> flag to export the schemas following a pattern.I don't think both features can't exist for functions (and stored procedures), but I see them as different features. We could have --functions-only and --function=<pattern>.
In my humble opinion, the lack of --function=<pattern> feature should block this patch.
Have a great day,
Lætitia
--
Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: