Hello Michael, Le mar. 25 janv. 2022 à 06:49, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 03:23:07PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > Looking at this thread I think it makes sense to go ahead with this > patch. The > > filter functionality worked on in another thread is dealing with > cherry-picking > > certain objects where this is an all-or-nothing switch, so I don't think > they > > are at odds with each other. > > Including both procedures and functions sounds natural from here. Now > I have a different question, something that has not been discussed in > this thread at all. What about patterns? Switches like --table or > --extension are able to digest a psql-like pattern to decide which > objects to dump. Is there a reason not to have this capability for > this new switch with procedure names? I mean to handle the case > without the function arguments, even if the same name is used by > multiple functions with different arguments. > Thank you for this suggestion. We have --schema-only flag to export only the structure and then we have --schema=<pattern> flag to export the schemas following a pattern. I don't think both features can't exist for functions (and stored procedures), but I see them as different features. We could have --functions-only and --function=<pattern>. In my humble opinion, the lack of --function=<pattern> feature should block this patch. Have a great day, Lætitia > -- > Michael >
