Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
| От | Tomas Vondra |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | a9add6fb-dadd-f2c8-d0d7-97402dc82ba2@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/10/21 1:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> The main question I have is whether this should include procedures. > > I feel a bit uncomfortable about sticking this sort of limited-purpose > selectivity mechanism into pg_dump. I'd rather see a general filter > method that can select object(s) of any type. Pavel was doing some > work towards that awhile ago, though I think he got frustrated about > the lack of consensus on details. Which is a problem, but I don't > think the solution is to accrue more and more independently-designed- > and-implemented features that each solve some subset of the big problem. > I'm not against introducing such general filter mechanism, but why should it block this patch? I'd understand it the patch was adding a lot of code, but that's not the case - it's tiny. And we already have multiple filter options (to pick tables, schemas, extensions, ...). And if there's no consensus on details of Pavel's patch after multiple commitfests, how likely is it it'll start moving forward? regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: