Re: TODO: Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(),

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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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