On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 08:14:32PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 27.08.2013 03:26, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:17 AM, David Fetter<david@fetter.org> wrote:
> >>On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:29:06PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>>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.
>
> Would anyone object to backpatching that change to 9.3 ?
I'm sure someone will, but I'm not that someone. It's not as though
the added syntax could have produced anything but a runtime error if
someone had it deployed, and the improvements both in usefulness and
consistency are compelling.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.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
