> On 20 May 2020, at 10:06, Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info> wrote:
> I was wondering the reason behind this choice. If anyone knows, I'd be happy > to hear about it. Extensions were dumped unconditionally in the beginning, but it was changed to match how procedural language definitions were dumped. > * it's been overlooked, and we should dump all the extensions available in a > schema if this schema has been selected through the --schema flag. For reference, --schema-only will include all the extensions, but not --schema=foo and not "--schema-only --schema=foo". Extensions don't belong to a schema per se, the namespace oid in pg_extension marks where most of the objects are contained but not necessarily all of them. Given that, it makes sense to not include extensions for --schema. However, that can be considered sort of an implementation detail which may not be entirely obvious to users (especially since you yourself is a power-user). > * it's kind of like the large objects handling, and I'd pretty interested in > adding a --extensions (as the same way there is a --blobs flag). An object in a schema might have attributes that depend on an extension in order to restore, so it makes sense to provide a way to include them for a --schema dump. The question is what --extensions should do: only dump any extensions that objects in the schema depend on; require a pattern and only dump matching extensions; dump all extensions (probably not) or something else? cheers ./daniel
