From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: The missing pg_get_*def functions |
Date: | 2013-04-30 13:00:46 |
Message-ID: | 20130430130046.GI4361@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> It may be that the functions Joel proposes are worth having for other
> tools to use, but I'm not in favor of making pg_dump use them.
I care very little about migrating the pg_dump functionality into
server-side functions and a great deal about *having* such functionality
available server-side. We've been around this time and time again:
there are use-cases beyond pg_dump for being able to get the definition
of an object. Having to first figure out and then replicate what pg_dump
(or psql) does is no trivial feat.
In short, I think I agree w/ Tom here (though I contend that there *are*
such use-cases, not that 'it may be'.. :). Let's drop the discussion
about changing pg_dump and/or psql and instead simply go implement these
functions. We can revisit the pg_dump discussion 5 or 10 years down the
road, after we've seen how well these functions work and what uses they
are put to outside of our (relatively small) world.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-04-30 13:02:20 | Re: The missing pg_get_*def functions |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-04-30 12:55:50 | Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums |