| From: | Lætitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, ahsan hadi <ahsan(dot)hadi(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
| Date: | 2021-07-30 10:55:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAB_COdiYwvxgd33GrvRhmd76J0kfZP2CsETDYdwJ-Ev4Oi+MUg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 4:43 PM Tomas Vondra <
> tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-07-30 11:07:28 | Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2021-07-30 10:48:34 | Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly |