| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views |
| Date: | 2013-01-10 17:09:15 |
| Message-ID: | 8211.1357837755@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:21:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> -1. The reason that pg_dump does not pretty-print things is that
>> it's unsafe; there is no real guarantee that the view will reload as
>> intended, because it's under-parenthesized. (Even if we were sure
>> it would reload safely into current code, which I'm not, what of
>> future versions that could have different operator precedences?)
> Under what circumstances do pretty-printed views not reload? It seems
> to me that such circumstances would be pretty_print() bugs by
> definition.
It would not be a bug, particularly not in the case of a subsequent
release with different operator precedence. pg_dump's charter is to be
safe. Pretty-printing's charter is to look nice. These goals are not
compatible. If they were, we'd never have made a separate pretty
printing mode at all.
Now, we could consider changing the "safe" mode so that it tries to
provide nice whitespace/line breaks while not risking removal of
parentheses. But that would be a totally different patch, and I'm
not sure how much it would address Marko's desires anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-10 17:26:06 | Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2013-01-10 17:08:45 | GIN over array of ENUMs |