Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
| От | Lætitia Avrot |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAB_COdiYwvxgd33GrvRhmd76J0kfZP2CsETDYdwJ-Ev4Oi+MUg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? (Ryan Lambert <ryan@rustprooflabs.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 4:43 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> The main question I have is whether this should include procedures. I'd
> probably argue procedures should be considered different from functions
> (i.e. requiring a separate --procedures-only option), because it pretty
> much is meant to be a separate object type. We don't allow calling DROP
> FUNCTION on a procedure, etc. It'd be silly to introduce an unnecessary
> ambiguity in pg_dump and have to deal with it sometime later.
I respectfully disagree. In psql, the `\ef` and `\df` metacommands will also list procedures, not just functions. So at one point we agreed to consider for this client that functions were close enough to procedures to use a simple metacommand to list/display without distinction. Why should it be different for `pg_dump` ?
Have a nice day,
Lætitia
Lætitia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: