From: | Andreas Pflug <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_get_triggerdef in pg_dump |
Date: | 2003-06-29 00:12:36 |
Message-ID: | 3EFE2EF4.7010704@web.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>OK, added to TODO:
>
> Modify pg_get_triggerdef() to take a boolean to pretty-print,
> and use that as part of pg_dump along with psql
>
>Andreas, can you work on this? I like the idea of removing extra
>parens, and merging it into the existing code rather than into contrib
>makes sense.
>
>
Just an announcement: I'll be sending a patch for ruleutils.c and
pg_proc.h tomorrow, after I performed some further testing.
pg_get_ruledef, pg_get_viewdef, pg_get_viewdef_name, pg_get_indexdef,
pg_get_constraintdef and pg_get_expr get an additional parameter int4
each which controls pretty-print (0: none, 1: parentheses, 1:
indentation, 3: both).
I had to make several conditionals for the old parenthesing code, but I
believe the functions still generate as usual if pretty-print is disabled.
At the moment, I assigned oids 2504-2509 (last used was 2503 when I
updated from cvs) to the additional functions, is that ok?
Regards,
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-29 00:55:20 | Re: Missing array support |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-06-28 21:44:35 | Re: persistant psql feature suggestion |