On 7/13/21 12:08 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 10 Jul 2021, at 17:47, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> So if it was up to me, I'd go back to the original format or something close it. So something like this:
>>
>> [+-] OBJECT_TYPE_PATTERN OBJECT_NAME_PATTERN
>
> That still leaves the parsing with quoting and escaping that needs to be done
> less trivial and more bespoke than what meets the eye, no?
>
Yes, it'd require proper escaping/quoting of the fields/identifiers etc.
> As mentioned upthread, I'm still hesitant to add a file format which deosn't
> have any version information of sorts for distinguishing it from when the
> inevitable "now wouldn't it be nice if we could do this too" patch which we all
> know will come. The amount of selectivity switches we have for pg_dump is an
> indication about just how much control users like, this will no doubt be
> subject to the same.
>
I'm not going to fight against some sort of versioning, but I think
keeping the scope as narrow as possible would make it unnecessary. That
is, let's stick to the original goal to allow passing filtering rules
that would not fit on the command-line, and maybe let's make it a bit
more flexible to support other object types etc.
IMHO the filtering rules are simple enough to not really need elaborate
versioning, and if a more advanced rule is proposed in the future it can
be supported in the existing format (extra field, ...).
Of course, maybe my imagination is not wild enough.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
