From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs |
Date: | 2018-02-21 07:35:50 |
Message-ID: | 20180221073550.GA1632@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:46:57PM +0300, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> Just 2 cents from me. It seems that there is a problem with extensions
> GUCs.
>
> [...]
>
> =# SELECT pg_get_functiondef('func_with_set_params'::regproc);
> ERROR: unrecognized configuration parameter "plpgsql.extra_errors"
You have an excellent point here, and I did not consider it.
For pg_dump and pg_dumpall, something like what I described in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180112012440.GA2222@paquier.xyz
to extend pg_settings so as GUC types are visible via SQL could make
sense, now it is really a lot for just being able to quote parameters
correctly. On top of that, what I suggested previously would not work
reliably except if we have pg_get_functiondef load the library
associated to a given parameter. Even in this case there could
perfectly be a custom parameter from another plugin and not a parameter
associated to the function language itself.
It seems to me that this brings us back to a best-effort for the backend
and the frontend by maintaining a list of hardcoded parameter names,
which could be refined a maximum by considering lists for in-core
extensions and perhaps the most famous extensions around :(
Thoughts?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-02-21 07:52:50 | Re: Speed up the removal of WAL files |
Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2018-02-21 07:20:00 | RE: Speed up the removal of WAL files |