"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.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.
