Le mer. 20 mai 2020 à 11:26, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> a écrit :
> > 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. > > That makes sense. Thank you. > * 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". > > Yes. 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). > > I agree. > * 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. That's actually how I figured this out. A customer can't restore his dump because of a missing extension (pg_trgm to be precise). 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? > > Actually, "dump all extensions" (#3) would make sense to me, and has my vote. Otherwise, and though it would imply much more work, "only dump any extension that objects in the schema depend on" (#1) comes second in my opinion. Using the pattern means something more manual for users, and I really think it would be a bad idea. People dump databases, schemas, and tables. Theu usually don't know which extensions those objects depend on. But, anyway, I would work on any of these solutions, depending on what most people think is best. Thanks. -- Guillaume.
