From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Lætitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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: | 2022-03-25 01:02:29 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYemRBtm7-gcUhEZuesCoBVEus9SxOjk0ZP7NTdmfAiXg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 5:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The extension object type does not seem to have gotten the
> > --exclude-extension capability that it would need to conform to the
> general
> > design exemplified by --table and hopefully extended out to the routine
> > object types.
>
> We're not going to instantly build out every feature that would be
> suggested by a roadmap. However, I see in what you just wrote
> a plausible roadmap: eventually, all or most object types should
> have pg_dump switches comparable to, and syntactically aligned
> with, the --table and --exclude-table switches. The expectation
> would be that if any of these selective-dump switches appear,
> then only objects matching at least one of them (and not matching
> any --exclude switch) will be dumped. So for example
>
> pg_dump --table=foo* --function=bar*
>
> dumps tables whose names start with foo, and functions whose
> names start with bar, and nothing else. (We'd need to spell out
> how these things interact with --schema, too.)
>
> In this scheme, Lætitia's desired functionality should be spelled
> "--function=*", or possibly "--routine=*", depending on what she
> wanted to happen with procedures.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
My longer first post today [1] indeed was that roadmap you were looking
for. I then re-read the part about --extension and realized I had missed
its existence and felt it desirable to note that within that roadmap the
existing --extension object type did not conform.
David J.
I think Gmail is messing with me by adding an unintended "Re:" to the
subject line which probably put my first response outside the thread.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-25 01:07:44 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-03-25 00:55:04 | Re: [PATCH] add relation and block-level filtering to pg_waldump |