Re: proposal: schema variables

po 22. 7. 2024 v 10:23 odesílatel Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
napsal:

> Thanks for the updated patch and the fixes!
>
> On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 08:37 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > > --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_restore.sgml
> > > > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_restore.sgml
> > >
> > > > + <varlistentry>
> > > > + <term><option>-A <replaceable
> class="parameter">schema_variable</replaceable></option></term>
> > > > + <term><option>--variable=<replaceable
> class="parameter">schema_variable</replaceable></option></term>
> > > > + <listitem>
> > > > + <para>
> > > > + Restore a named schema variable only. Multiple schema
> variables may be specified with
> > > > + multiple <option>-A</option> switches.
> > > > + </para>
> > > > + </listitem>
> > > > + </varlistentry>
> > >
> > > Do we need that? We have no such option for functions and other
> non-relations.
> >
> > It is designed to be consistent with others. pg_restore supports
> functions -P, triggers -T
> > >
> > > And if we really want such an option for "pg_restore", why not for
> "pg_dump"?
> > >
> >
> > I have no strong opinion about it, I think so it is consistent with
> other non-relations, but it is not important.
> >
> > I moved this feature to a separate patch. It can be committed optionaly
> or later.
> >
> > pg_restore has options -P, -T, and pg_dump does not have these options.
> These options (functionality) can
> > be implemented in pg_dump too, but unfortunately -T is used for
> different purposes (exclude table).
>
> Ah! I didn't realize that -P and -T are the same. So no objections,
> although I'm
> not sure if anyone will ever want to restore a single variable from a
> backup.
>

I wrote it mainly for completeness and symmetry. I can imagine only one use
case - possibility to offline trace the changes of schema, but who knows.
The cost is just an occupation of 'A' char. Maybe it doesn't need a short
option, and a long option can be good enough.

Pavel

> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>