Re: pg_restore multiple --function options

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_restore multiple --function options
Date: 2013-08-27 00:26:29
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRKJu7V9etahdiKpPe37Khv8NsmKSM9aoFVwtr237K_tA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:29:06PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While looking at the pg_restore code, I noticed that while it
>> supports specifying multiple --table options to restore several
>> tables, it does not support multiple --function options. Or --index,
>> --schema, or --trigger.
>>
>> The support for multiple --table options was added in 9.3, in
>> January. See http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAK3UJRG+yV1mK5twLfKVMCwXH4f6PnJou6Rn=ecabyfQH1vVHg@mail.gmail.com.
>> Was there a particular reason for only doing it for --table, or was
>> it just an oversight or lack of interest? No doubt that --table is
>> the most interesting one, but IMHO the other options should behave
>> the same, for the sake of consistency.
>
> +1 for making them consistent. There will also be an improvement in
> usability.
+1. It would be good to have consistency there for all the objects.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message yinminmin 2013-08-27 02:45:25 [GENERAL] Call for translations
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2013-08-26 23:24:58 Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs