On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:04:09PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Sorry for jumping in late, but thinking about this extension to pg_dump:
> doesn't it make more sense to use an existing file format like JSON for this,
> given that virtually all devops/cd/etc tooling know about JSON already?
>
> Considering its application and the problem space, I'd expect users to generate
> this file rather than handcraft it with 10 rows of content, and standard file
> formats help there.
I mentioned having tested this patch as we would use it. But it's likely I
*wouldn't* use it if the format was something which required added complexity
to pipe in from an existing shell script.
> At the very least it seems limiting to not include a file format version
> identifier since we'd otherwise risk running into backwards compat issues
> should we want to expand on this in the future.
Maybe .. I'm not sure. The patch would of course be extended to handle
additional include/exclude options. Is there any other future behavior we
might reasonably anticipate ?
If at some point we wanted to support another file format, maybe it would look
like: --format=v2:filters.txt (or maybe the old one would be v1:filters.txt)
--
Justin