| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), |
| Date: | 2006-06-12 03:47:13 |
| Message-ID: | 448CE3C1.4080206@paradise.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> Trying to get back on point. What is the scope of work for the TODO
>>> item? Forget everything else I brought up. What is the goal of the
>>> existing TODO?
>>
>> I'm not sure that the TODO item has a reason to live at all, but surely
>> the first item of work for it should be to figure out what its use-case
>> is. If pg_dump isn't going to use these functions, what will?
>
> Well I can't think of a reason to use the functions as a way to deliver
> CREATE statements.
>
> Anyone else have thoughts?
Keeping 'em separate makes sense to me:
1/ API (or info schema views) provides the required data (e.g column
details for a table).
2/ client (e.g. pg_dump) decides what to do with it (e.g. construct a
CREATE statement from the column details).
Cheers
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-12 04:20:27 | Re: TODO: Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-06-12 03:25:03 | Re: TODO: Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(), |