On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 6:21 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 4:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 12:01 PM Ashutosh Bapat > > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > If we want to stick to --database= supporting a pattern looks better > > > than just a single special pattern *. > > > > > > > This sounds reasonable to me as well. Note that the interaction of > > other parameters like --replication-slot is not yet discussed. I think > > if the number of slots given matches with the number of databases > > fetched based on pattern matches then we can use them otherwise, > > return the ERROR. The other option could be that we don't allow > > options like --replication-slot along with pattern matching option. > > > > I have had second thoughts about my pattern idea. Now, I favour just > adding another --all-databases switch like Ashutosh had suggested [1] > in the first place. > > I had overlooked the rules saying that the user is allowed to specify > *multiple* --publication or --replication-slot or --subscription name > switches, but when doing so they have to match the same number of > --database switches. Using a --dbname=pattern would be fraught with > complications. e.g. How can we know up-front how many databases the > dbname pattern will resolve to, and even in what order they get > resolved? >
It could be a bit tricky to find that for users but they can devise a query to get the names and numbers of databases matching the given pattern. OTOH, I am not sure there is a clear need at this stage for pattern matching for this tool. So, we can go with a simple switch as you are proposing at this stage. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
