On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> As there begins to be many switches of this kind and much code
>> duplication, I think that some refactoring into a more generic switch
>> infrastructure would be nicer.
> I have been thinking about this also and agree that it would be nicer,
> but then these options would just become "shorthand" for the generic
> switch.

I don't really like the "generic switch infrastructure" concept.  I
think it will make specifying behaviors harder without any
corresponding benefit.  There are quite a few --no-xxx switches now
but the total number of them that we could conceivably end up with
doesn't seem to be a lot bigger than what we have already.

Now, if we want switches to exclude a certain kind of object (e.g.
table, function, text search configuration) from the backup
altogether, that should be done in some generic way, like
--exclude-object-type=table.  But that's not what this is about.  This
is about excluding a certain kind of property (comments, in this case)
from being backed up.  And an individual kind of object doesn't have
many more properties than what we already handle.

So I think this is just an excuse for turning --no-security-labels
into --no-object-property=security-label.  To me, that's just plain

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to