From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: pg_restore multiple --function options |
Date: | 2013-08-27 20:21:42 |
Message-ID: | 21970.1377634902@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
Oh --- OK, I was misremembering. I recalled that people weren't happy
with the handling of --function, but had the details wrong.
[pokes around]
I think really the issues are (1) it only works in pg_restore, not
pg_dump, and (2) there's no wildcard matching (the pickiness about
argument type name spelling being perhaps a subset of that).
It's probably true that accepting multiple patterns doesn't preclude
solving either of those, and indeed might help users work around (2).
So nevermind that objection. But I still say this is all too late
for 9.3.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-27 20:29:14 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-27 20:14:58 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |