Re: pg_restore multiple --function options

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:35:40PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 27.08.2013 21:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> >>Would anyone object to backpatching that change to 9.3 ? The risk seems
> >>very small, and it would be good to do the other options in the same
> >>release as --table. It was an oversight to only do it for --table in 9.3.
> >
> >>Assuming no objections, I'll apply the attached patch to 9.3 and master
> >>later tonight.
> >
> >I object, strongly. This is a feature addition, and has no business going
> >in post-rc1, especially with no time for review.
>
> Ok.
>
> >As far as the function case goes, I'm not really thrilled about layering
> >more functionality on that until we've come to some understanding about
> >how to select from a group of overloaded functions. It may be that this
> >is orthogonal to that issue ... or maybe not. I don't have any objection
> >to fixing the non-function cases, as long as it's only in HEAD.
>
> Huh, what's that issue?
>
> As the code stands, you have to pass the argument types to the
> --function flag, ie. --function="myfunc(integer)". It's annoyingly
> picky about the spelling, as the it has to match exactly what
> pg_dump prints, but it does handle selecting one function from a
> group of overloaded ones. And that really is orthogonal to whether
> or not you can give multiple --function arguments.

Come to think of it, some kind of recognition that functions can come
in several flavors would be awesome, e.g.

--function=myfunc\*

which would capture all variants of myfunc.

Let the bikeshedding begin!

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate