From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TODO: Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(), |
Date: | 2006-06-11 03:20:15 |
Message-ID: | 448B8BEF.2060307@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Well, the argument against changing pg_dump is that it would impact the
> ability to use the newer version of pg_dump with older backends (which
> would be lacking these functions).
>
> ISTM what would be best is to add the functions to the backend, and add
> a TODO or comments to pg_dump indicating that it should be changed to
> use these functions once 8.1 is no longer supported. Or you could make
> pg_dump's use of this code dependent on the server version it connected
> to.
Off list I was speaking with AndrewD and he said that he would expect
that if we called pg_get_tabledef() it should return the CREATE
statement for the table.
With all due respect to Andrew, why? At least in my mind these functions
really belong to app developers.. e.g;
CREATE TABLE foo (id serial);
SELECT pg_get_tabledef(foo) would return
id, serial
Not:
CREATE TABLE foo (id serial);
I mean, I can do either but I would like to get a clear definition of
what we are looking for here. Maybe:
pg_get_tabledef is the actual SQL and pg_get_tabledesc() is the column,
datatype output?
I guess I don't see the advantage of putting pg_dump -s -t in the backend.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-06-11 05:45:30 | Re: Ranges for well-ordered types |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-11 01:57:47 | Re: Ranges for well-ordered types |