Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Ye+PVtkDmA574BL2@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>) |
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 ? Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: