Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Pet Peeves?

From: Jasen Betts <jasen(at)xnet(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pet Peeves?
Date: 2009-01-31 19:35:17
Message-ID: gm295l$o4s$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On 2009-01-30, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> wrote:
>> You can however pull it from a -Fc backup with pg_restore. Just FYI.
>> Joshua D. Drake
> Or strip it from a pg_dump/pg_dumpall with sed. Or write your own 
> function-dumper based on ideas gleaned from various notes/comments on 
> the web (my approach).
> I had not thought of using the -Fc approach but it appears that that 
> would require dumping the whole database then using pg_restore to pull 
> the function definition from the dump.

not the whole database, you can use --schema-only 
this can save significant pipe bandwidth.

Is it possible to get pg_restore to list just the named function?

> One other thing that would be nice to have for function-dumping whether 
> in pg_dump or using the -Fc approach would be the ability to dump all 
> functions of a given name instead of having to go one-by-one. It's 
> pretty unusual for identically-named functions to have unrelated purposes.

but sometimes you only want one of them.

in summary it'd be nice to have an equivalent of pg_restore's
"--function=NAME(args)" option on pg_dump and to have the "(args)" part

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2009-01-31 20:05:13
Subject: Re: Pet Peeves?
Previous:From: MohamedDate: 2009-01-31 19:21:17
Subject: Indices types, what to use. Btree, Hash, Gin or Gist

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group