On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 5:40 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.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. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwYcw%2BA%2BMyDQoVahKkEqJtgih3c1i-JLY_YPMucNfgQDkg%40mail.gmail.com 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.
