Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file

Greetings,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 2021-Jul-13, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The simplest possible format isn't going to work with all the different
> > pg_dump options and it still isn't going to be 'simple' since it needs
> > to work with the flexibility that we have in what we support for object
> > names,
>
> That's fine. If people want a mechanism that allows changing the other
> pg_dump options that are not related to object filtering, they can
> implement a configuration file for that.

It's been said multiple times that people *do* want that and that they
want it to all be part of this one file, and specifically that they
don't want to end up with a file structure that actively works against
allowing other options to be added to it.

> > I don't know that the options that I suggested previously would
> > definitely work or not but they at least would allow other projects like
> > pgAdmin to leverage existing code for parsing and generating these
> > config files.
>
> Keep in mind that this patch is not intended to help pgAdmin
> specifically. It would be great if pgAdmin uses the functionality
> implemented here, but if they decide not to, that's not terrible. They
> have survived decades without a pg_dump configuration file; they still
> can.

The adding of a config file for pg_dump should specifically be looking
at pgAdmin as the exact use-case for having such a capability.

> There are several votes in this thread for pg_dump to gain functionality
> to filter objects based on a simple specification -- particularly one
> that can be written using shell pipelines. This patch gives it.

And several votes for having a config file that supports, or at least
can support in the future, the various options which pg_dump supports-
and active voices against having a new file format that doesn't allow
for that.

> > I'm not completely against inventing something new, but I'd really
> > prefer that we at least try to make something existing work first
> > before inventing something new that everyone is going to have to deal
> > with.
>
> That was discussed upthread and led nowhere.

You're right- no one followed up on that. Instead, one group continues
to push for 'simple' and to just accept what's been proposed, while
another group counters that we should be looking at the broader design
question and work towards a solution which will work for us down the
road, and not just right now.

One thing remains clear- there's no consensus here.

Thanks,

Stephen