| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laetitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
| Date: | 2022-03-25 17:34:21 |
| Message-ID: | 3344380.1648229661@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Laetitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Thank you so much for your suggestion. I was really excited to find a
> generic term for Functions and Procedures, but "routine" also includes
> aggregation functions which I had excluded from my feature (see Postgres
> Glossary here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/glossary.html#GLOSSARY-ROUTINE)
> I had decided not to include aggregate functions when I designed my patch
> because I thought most users wouldn't expect them in the result file. Was I
> wrong?
I'd vote for treating them as functions for this purpose. I'd put
them in the same category as window functions: we use a separate
name for them for historical reasons, but they still walk and quack
pretty much like functions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-25 17:52:11 | Re: pgsql: Add 'basebackup_to_shell' contrib module. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-25 17:31:26 | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |