Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 5:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The extension object type does not seem to have gotten the
> > --exclude-extension capability that it would need to conform to the
> general
> > design exemplified by --table and hopefully extended out to the routine
> > object types.
>
> We're not going to instantly build out every feature that would be
> suggested by a roadmap. However, I see in what you just wrote
> a plausible roadmap: eventually, all or most object types should
> have pg_dump switches comparable to, and syntactically aligned
> with, the --table and --exclude-table switches. The expectation
> would be that if any of these selective-dump switches appear,
> then only objects matching at least one of them (and not matching
> any --exclude switch) will be dumped. So for example
>
> pg_dump --table=foo* --function=bar*
>
> dumps tables whose names start with foo, and functions whose
> names start with bar, and nothing else. (We'd need to spell out
> how these things interact with --schema, too.)
>
> In this scheme, Lætitia's desired functionality should be spelled
> "--function=*", or possibly "--routine=*", depending on what she
> wanted to happen with procedures.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
My longer first post today [1] indeed was that roadmap you were looking
for. I then re-read the part about --extension and realized I had missed
its existence and felt it desirable to note that within that roadmap the
existing --extension object type did not conform.

David J.

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwYcw%2BA%2BMyDQoVahKkEqJtgih3c1i-JLY_YPMucNfgQDkg%40mail.gmail.com

I think Gmail is messing with me by adding an unintended "Re:" to the
subject line which probably put my first response outside the thread.